BULLETIN 917 SEPTEMBER 1958 LIBRARY A a m oneness or sexes ' muzei STATTON. TEXAS Bests and Returns see Irrigated Peanut Production, UJesi Cress Timbers, 1953-57 azure: noon nu om- noacms 000w. son - 0mm: ro c cursor: m mama our sou we ALL W‘ oou :1 °°‘-'~"'°$' ouutv was n»: nova norm com: T}? W _ - m” m‘ rum ‘ "‘ “‘“ FY LUBIOCK CROSBY NCKEIS KING KNOX IQYLQ MUCH Yomum i mm mm emu mo’ msxm. mm vow. 4m u ,1 E w’ . s _.JL . - _ "E51, “Jim am“ m." g R mow I I I |_- 1 moans Leanna [noun Infernal.‘ noun TAYLOR uu. . “Us . i ' rmou Kan ' ' - 1 | | ' ~ / -\ ""1. KILL o men , ecron lusouno coke ‘imm-simtumi I ‘mum. _/\_ _( I i; WEST CROSS TIMBERS i? WIN WARD S j L “w” I “IR-vs gunman; m I '\ ""- . ___| so» ‘tu- new“ \° Z ‘ ' scmzucnza ‘ s“ ' ammo \. ' V P5605 caocuewr "M" . w ours _ ; “SN i “m n. mason . _/ '$.T‘ . | suflou IUNBLE - \/'- " '- rn _ / ‘Fl "£34910 I musrzo m‘ w. venue zoumos o?» 0 - j u a ‘ifivnm’. I us‘ manner ‘ L . mus,‘ laumook 1am ' o . . I 1J1 Ill 1i: w m vscronu e s- ‘ / onun u sun: “t! u,¢\ ‘a _ trucao e on} / ‘ s“ y / ' nmcno ‘ ~01 _, . was nun; | macs: f -! u. cao' V ea ‘ _.“ ~ j mun "'" {lemons - xcnzov f'"" 7 um - _ mOAL in cooperation with the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION R. D. LEW_ISA, DIRECTOR, COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS SUMMARY Five years of experience in the West Coast Timbers area 0f Texas show that wells of low capacity (25 to 120 gallons per minute, g.p.m.) can be used profitably in the production of irri- gated peanuts. Special handling techniques are needed to accumulate a water supply and to dis- tribute water over the deep sandy soils where pea- nuts are grown. Thus pumping, storage and dis- tribution facilities are standard equipment for irrigation with wells of low capacity. The small heads of water (25 to 120 g.p.m.) combined with the types of equipment needed result in an irri- gation development cost that ranges from $146 to $301 per acre irrigated on individual farms. Heavier seeding rates, increased quantities of fertilizer, more hoeing and cultivation and addi- tional harvest costs are incurred when peanuts are irrigated. Also, additional labor is needed to lay out, move and retrieve sprinkler systems. From 1953-57, yields of peanuts on irrigated land averaged 34 bushels per acre compared with an average dryland yield of 14 bushels per acre —a net difference of 20 bushels in favor of the irrigated peanuts. Irrigation also improved the quality of peanuts produced, particularly during the dry years of 1954 and 1956. Irrigation in- creased hay yields about 20 bales per acre. CONTENTS Summary ............................................................... -. 2 Crop Production Practices .............................. .. . i Introduct-Jon """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""" " 3 Peanut Yields _____________________________________________________ ._ Farm Organization ............ .-; ............................... _. 3 " Irrigatign Facilities _____________________________________________ __ 3 Irrlgatm“ COStS-"i --------------------------------------------- " i Cost of Irrigation Development ________________________ __ 4 Irrigation Returns --------------------------------------------- -- I Irrigation Practices ______________________________________________ __ 5 Acknowledgments ______________________________________________ __ F Costs for irrigation water averaged $5.0 acre-inch, or $33 per acre, during 1953-57. cost of labor for irrigation and other costs ciated with irrigation A ranged from $10.0 $16.67 and averaged $13.66 per acre for t year period. The average total cost of irrig including operating and overhead, on indiv farms, ranged from $37.96 to $63.34 per acr averaged $46.64 per acre of irrigated peanut all farms. The 5-year average net return from gated peanut production on individual f ranged from $39.65 to $59.64 per acre but fered considerably among farms and on the farm in different years. The lowest net r amounted to $10.25 per acre, whereas the est was $196.40 per acre. These extremes i return per acre were both realized on the farm in successive years. The 5-year average annual net return farm from irrigated peanut production was e alent to a return ranging from 18.9 to 33.4 cent on the amount invested in irrigation f ' ties on these farms. In calculating these age annual net return rates, it was assumed i. management returns would be the same irrigated as from dryland peanut productio Bests and Returns et irrigated Peanut Predrretirrn, lllest Cress timbers, 195357 WM. F. HUGHES and A. C. MAGEE* E ERA OF IRRIGATED CASH CROP FARMING IN TEXAS, which began late in the 19th century, been marked from time t0 time by the addi- of new crops. Early irrigated cash crops tisted of cotton and rice. Later, irrigation of 1S, vegetables, grain sorghum and wheat Was oduced. In recent years, peanuts have been 2d to the list of crops produced under irriga- in Texas. N0 doubt peanuts have been irrigated in the ;, but no instance of peanut irrigation was 1d in the 1948 inventory of irrigation in Tex- Production of irrigated peanuts is believed rave begun near Pearsall in Frio county in 3 and to have expanded from there to other rs during the drouth of 1952-56. Peanuts now irrigated in several areas of the State but rt water supplies and acreage allotments have ted the total acreage irrigated. The major rs of irrigated peanut production are located r Pearsall in Frio county, near Camp San a in McCulloch county, near DeLeon in Co- rche and Erath counties and near Grapeland lrockett county. This study was undertaken to obtain infor- ion on peanut irrigation practices, costs and .rns. Because irrigation of peanuts was a tively new practice, no backlog of experience available to assist growers with their eco- ric production problems. Also, farmers in the ly area obtained their supplies of irrigation er from wells with capacities smaller than erally considered economically feasible for i-scale irrigation. Five farms in the High- ls Community of Comanche and Erath coun- were selected for study. (See cover.) Rec- s covering irrigation development costs, water ragement and crop production practices and iomic returns were obtained and analyzed for 3-57. Thefpractice of irrigation, particularly un- subhumid conditions, modifies the natural en- rnment and the results obtained reflect the ef- s of the kinds and quantities of resources em- red under various crop and management pro- spectively, agricultural economist, Farm Economics search Division, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. partment of Agriculture, professor, Department of Ag- altural Economics and Sociology, College Station, (as. ghes, Wm. F. and Motheral, Joe C., Irrigated Agricul- re in Texas. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. MP-59. grams. Year-to-year yields and income vary widely on individual farms and between individ- ual farms in the same year. Since each combi- nation of resources and management practices reflects a different production situation, it is dif- ficult to compare year-to-year results. However, year-to-year yields and income data, as well as averages for individual farms, are useful in de- termining the range of results that reasonably might be expected from similar enterprises. FARM ORGANIZATION The five farms ranged from 220 to 920 acres with 44 to 82 percent in cultivation. All were owner-operated and only two had increased in size since irrigation was started. Three of the farms contained some share-rented land. Farm improvements were above average for this gen- eral area. The farmlands, including the irrigated tracts, are sandy with undulating to gently rolling topography—typical peanut land of the general area. Although two of the farm operators installed dairy enterprises during the last years of the study, production of peanuts is the main farm en- terprise. Peanuts grown on irrigated and dry land accounted for about half the total number of acres cultivated in any given year. Other crops grown were oats, grain sorghum, cotton, peas, Su- dan and vetch and rye. Livestock, dairy or beef cattle, were important enterprises on four of the five farms. Peanuts were the chief crop irrigated. How- ever, because of scant water supplies, the entire acreage of peanuts was irrigated only three times on one farm and only once on another farm dur- ing 1953-57. Small acreages of oats, peas, cot- ton, grain sorghum, vetch and rye and alfalfa have been irrigated. The total number of acres irrigated and the acreages of peanuts irrigated by years and by farms are shown in Table 1. The average number of acres irrigated per farm changed little during the 5 years, 1953-57. The proportion of all land irrigated for peanuts increased materially. Water was used on other crops only when it was not needed on peanuts. IRRIGATION FACILITIES Water suppliesare obtained from Wells that tap the Trinity sands near their outcrop. Well depths, yields, pump settings and equipment sizes 3 TABLE 1. ACREAGE IRRIGATED. FIVE SELECTED FARMS. HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY. COMANCHE AND ERATH COU TEXAS. 1958-57 1958 1954 1955 1956 1957 Farm numb“ P on. P on. P o h P o 1. P ea- er ea- er ea- t er ea- t er ea- Total nuts crops Total nuts crops Total nuts crops Total nuts crops Total nuts — — — — — — — — — — Acres - — — — — — — — 1 20 20 0 48 80 18 24 24 0 27 27 0 18 18 2 85 78 7 88 88 5 101 101 0 79 76 3 82 82 8 110 40 70 52 25 27 60 60 0 88 60 28 40 40 4 88 18 20 81 12 9 82 82 0 76 76‘ "= f» 0 75 75 5 25 17 8 88 17 16 80 18 12 40 21 19 81 27 Average all farms 54.7 88.8 20.9 50.7 88.6 15.1 49.6 47.2 2 4 62.0 52.0 10.0 49.2 48.4 — — — — — -— — — — — Percent — —- — — — — — — Irrigated acreage in peanuts. all farms 62 66 95 84 98 are shown in Table 2. Being near the outcrop area, the saturated section is relatively thin and its thickness differs considerably between wells. The output of most wells has declined. This is evident particularly during the latter part of the pumping season. However, both the water levels and the well yields improved in 1957 when pre- cipitation was above normal. Yields of some wells have declined sharply as a result of mutual inter- ference from nearby wells. All wells were equipped with turbine pumps powered by small 2 to 5 horsepower electric mo- tors. Wells are arranged to pump into small storage reservoirs, commonly two wells to the reservoir. The reservoirs, with one exception, were constructed before the development of irri- gation. The reservoirs commonly have a sur- face area of one-fourth to one-half acre and can store a supply of water equivalent to that obtained from 4 to 10 days of continuous pumping. Water is pumped from the storage reservoir and distributed to crops through portable sprink- ler systems. Eight sprinkler systems were used on the five cooperating farms. These systems could cover from 1.15 to 2.0 acres per setting, with 1.3 acres per setting the more common size. Sprinkler output ranged from 0.5 to 1.0 inc " water per hour. Five of the eight sprinkler a tems were designed to deliver 0.75 inch per h All except one of the sprinkler systems equipped with 3" x 3” pumps powered by automobile engines operated with butane. Spr ler mains were chiefly 5 and 4-inch diam aluminum pipe with 4 and 3-inch laterals. COST OF IRRIGATION DEVELOPME Investments in irrigation facilities have creased since the development of irrigation b _ in 1952. Additional wells were installed o _ five cooperating farms, reservoirs were enlar ~ more pipe was added to existing sprinkler tems and more sprinkler systems were ad The initial cost of development and the addit by years are shown in Table 3. The investment per irrigated acre, like ; investment per farm, has fluctuated widely f year to year, reflecting the effects of a ch 1 ' in number of acres irrigated or of increased ital investment. The average investment acre irrigated in 1957 was $100 greater than é average investment in 1953. ‘ TABLE 2. CHARACTERISTICS OF IRRIGATION WELLS, FIVE SELECTED FARMS, HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY. COMA AND ERATH COUNTIES. TEXAS. 1958-57 Farm No. 1 Farm No. 2 Farm No. 8 Farm No 4 Farm Item Unit Well No. Well No. Well No. Well No 1 2 1 2 8 4 1 2 8 4 1 2 8 Date drilled‘ . 1952 1956 1952 1952 1954 1955 1951 1951 1952 1956 1952 1956 1956 1951 Depth drilled Feet - 100 98 116 118 125 125 120 120 129 180 128 125 184- 185 Water level Feet 70 52 64 60 65 60 25 25 100 100 82 78 84 121 Saturated sectiong Feet 26 28 52 52 60 61 85 85 20 20 78 42 86 Pump setting Feet 96 80 116 118 125 121 110 110 120 120 110 120 120 180 Pump size Inches 8 2 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 4 4 8 Motor rating Horsepower 5 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 8 8 5 5 5 Well yield 1958“ G.p.m. 80 80 80 80 100 45 120 1954‘ G.p.m. 45 50 87 75 54 65 5 56 1956‘ G.p.m. 85 22 29 89 75 65 58 58 28 40 80 70“ 120“ ‘Year the well was drilled; not necessarily year of first use. 2Tota1 thickness oi water-bearing formation at well site. “Yields reported by operator. ‘Yields measured. ‘Well not used in 1954. 4 uring the first 2 years of operation, about ird of the irrigated acreage was in crops than peanuts, Table 1. The years 1952-54 f. more or less as a “Shakedown” period for it irrigation. Beginning in 1955, the acre- in “other crops” was sharply curtailed, in- ent in irrigation facilities increased and the ige of irrigated peanuts increased by about , Tables 1 and 3. ‘ rops other than peanuts were irrigated water was not needed for peanuts. Conse- y, the increase in the acreage of peanuts ted required an expansion in irrigation fa- Peanuts have been the most profitable and they have borne the brunt of develop- , costs. Elimination of “other crops” has increased the average cost of development per on peanuts to the extent indicated in Table With all the cost of development charged to its, the average development cost per acre increased from $152 in 195s to $198 per acre IR 7, an increase of $46 per acre compared with 1953-57 increase of $100 per acre irrigated. ' - 3. IRRIGATION PRACTICES he use of low-yielding wells as a source of supply requires that pumps be started in of the irrigation season. Pumps seldom .1 stopped during the entire irrigation season. . the reservoir was full, the sprinkler systems started and operated as long as the supply e reservoir would permit. flThe usual practice was to plant peanuts in ay or early June and to begin applying Wa- late July or early August, continuing irri- , q through September. The number of times was applied and the irrigation schedule fol- depended principally on the season and the p, tity of Water available. _1_’ A modification of this system consisted of ting peanuts at two different times. The peanuts were planted in March or April. 2 a tion was begun in late June and ended about Ttime water was needed on the peanuts planted in May and June. This technique lengthens the irrigation season and permits a larger acreage of peanuts to be irrigated without adding extra equipment. The number of irrigations varied with the season and with individual farms, ranging from a low of one application on one farm in 1955, to a high of eight on one farm during the extremely dry year of 1954. In 1954 and 1956, both dry years, the number of applications on the five farms averaged 4.6 and 4.1, respectively. Sea- sonal conditions Were more favorable in 1953 and 1955, and the number of applications was less, averaging 3.7 and 2.2, respectively. The 1957 crop season was marked by heavy’ and late-season precipitation. The summer was dry, however, and peanuts received an average of 3.3 irriga- tions. The number of applications of irrigation wa- ter per season varied considerably among farms during the 5 years of observation. However, the usual range was three to five irrigations per sea- son. Although a few applications ranged up to 3.0-»- inches per irrigation, the more common rate was 1.5 to 2.0 inches per irrigation. The total amount of water applied per acre ranged from an aver- age of 3.9 acre-inches per acre in 1955 to 7.9 acre- inches per acre in 1956. Water applied during 1953-54 averaged 7.0 and 6.6 acre-inches per acre, respectively. An average of 7.3 acre-inch of wa- ter per acre was applied in 1957. CROP PRODUCTION PRACTICES The introduction of irrigation has led to some changes in. the practices commonly used in pro- ducing peanuts compared with production prac- tices on dry land. These changes are mainly in the form of increased rates of fertilizer applica- cation, heavier seeding rates and an increase in the amount of hoeing and cultivation required to control weeds. Land preparation practices have not changed since irrigation was introduced. Seed- ing rates for both irrigated and dryland peanuts‘ have increased since 1953. The more common til-l 3. INVESTMENT IN IRRIGATION FACILITIES, FIVE SELECTED FARMS. HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY, COMANCHE AND I ERATH COUNTIES. TEXAS. 1953-57‘ 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 M’ ~ number " he izgziza he 5:32:22 We 335.3222 W 5512:: We 5:23:21: — —— — — — _—— — — Dollars — — — — — — — — — I 4.317 216 4.317 90 4.317 180 4.417 164 5.417 301 2 6.595 84 9.147 110 12.292 121 14.192 180 14.192 173 3 6.731 61 6.731 132 8.607 143 10.626 121 10.626 266 _ 4 3.735 , 113 3,735 174 3.805 119 9.924 130 10.924 146 " ' 5 4.275 128 4,527 181 4.527 148 6.469 162 6.684 216 average 5.130 94 5.691 112 6.709 135 _ 9.125 147 9.568 194 preciated amount invested in wells. reservoirs and sprinkler systems. rate of seeding dryland peanuts was 4O pounds per acre. During the 1953 season, this rate was used for both irrigated and dryland peanuts. Be- ginning in 1954, the irrigated seeding rate was increased by an average of 5 pounds per acre. In 1957, irrigated peanuts were seeded at an aver- age rate of 45.6 pounds per acre, whereas the rate for dryland peanuts was 43.6 pounds. The increased seeding rate for dryland pea- nuts does not necessarily reflect any particular change in production practices. It results from the fact that the number of acres that can be irri- gated is not known at planting time. Thus, the operator with scant water resources prepares in advance to irrigate as many acres as the season will permit. The higher seeding rates have tend- ed to be associated with the higher yields. Some of the differences in yield probably are due to management, but yields of irrigated peanuts sel- lom exceeded 35 bushels per acre with a seeding rate of 40 pounds per acre. In only one instance did the yield fall below 35 bushels per acre when a seeding rate of 50 pounds per acre was used. Four of the five farmers used heavier rates of fertilizer—chiefly 6-24-24 and 10-20-10--on irrigated land than on dryland peanuts. The in- crease ranged from 25 to more than 100 percent in the quantity of materials applied. The usual application on dry land was 80 to 100 pounds of material per acre. On irrigated peanuts, it was 100 to 200 pounds per acre. The average amount of plant nutrients ap- plied per acre on irrigated peanuts has increased from 7.2-28.8-10.8 pounds (N-P2O5-K2O) in 1953. to 14.0-47.0-13.8 pounds (N-P2O5-K2O) in 1957. The increase in number of pounds per acre of fertilizer nutrients applied on dryland peanuts was less pronounced. The range was from 7.8- 25.6-7.8 pounds per acre in 1953 to 8.8-28.4-8.6 pounds (N-P2O5-K2O), respectively, in 1957. Two of the cooperating farmers fertilized irrigated peanuts with a high concentrate nitro- gen solution applied through the sprinkler sys- TABLE 4. PEANUT YIELD PER ACRE. IRRIGATED AND DRYLAND. FIVE SELECTED FARMS, HIGHLANDS COMMU .‘ COMANCHE AND ERATH COUNTIES. TEXAS. 1953-57 . ferent years, the results were much the sa tern. Although the applications were made in ' a substantial increase in top growth with littl l no increase in the yield of peanuts. The pro was not repeated during the 5 years covere the study reported. The amount of hoeing and the number of . tivations required on dryland and irrigated 3 nuts were about the samellin 1953 and 1954. S 1954 the amounts of hoeing and cultivation n ed for irrigated peanuts have increased. The hoeing requirements for irrigated were consi ably greater than for dryland peanuts. Par i‘ ; this difference probably was due to the ' drouth, because the 1957 requirements were 0 . 1.7 times those for dryland peanuts. I Irrigation has much the same effect on number of cultivations required. Most of irrigated peanuts have received one to three cultivations than peanuts produced on dry la 5 The hoeing and cultivation requirements peanuts planted in early April are particul heavy. The number of man-hours of hoeing = quired to control weeds on peanuts planted ' April has averaged four times more than on ' gated peanuts planted in late May or June. E planted peanuts also have required twice as m _ cultivation as those planted later. PEANUT YIELDS Yields of irrigated peanuts averaged bushels per acre compared with an average 13.8 bushels per acre on dry land during 1953 ' Table 4. The average yield on individual fa ranged from 28.8 to 40 bushels per acre on ' I gated land compared with a range of 13.2 to bushels per acre on dry land. The seasonal fects in individual years are shown in the h ing on “Average all farms,” Table 4. Although the yield from irrigated pea on individual farms differed considerably in a ticular years, the variation in yearly aver Yield per acre Farm number 1953 1954 Irri- Dry- Irri- Dry- Irri- gated land gated land gated 1 35.1 22.0 20.3 5.3 34. 2 34.7 24.0 27.5 14.0 36. 3 34.0 22.0 52.0 0.0 42. 4 53.0 22.0 32.0 9.0 40. 5 35.6 25.0 21.0 8 0 47. Average all ‘farms 34.98 23.24 29.51 5 75 39. Average 1955 1956 1957 195$” Dry- Irri- Dry- I Irri- Dry- Irri- Dry land gated land gated land gated lan — Bushels — — —— -— — — — — 16.8 31.7 4.7 41.3 13.4 32.17 13.6 25.0 24.5 3 1 30.0 20.0 28.85 15.5 25.0 36.7 7.0 40.2 17.0 40.04 13.2 21.5 40.5 3.3 29.9‘ 16.8 36.96 15.3 14.5 42.0 6.0 30.0 17.0 35.60 13.6 18.16 34.16 7 50 32.49 16.87 34.24 13.8 ' ‘Yield reduced by root borer damage. 6 was smaller, Table 4. In contrast, the year- ‘rage yields for dryland peanuts ranged from Plof 5.7 to a high of 23.2 bushels per acre. f 1 'sture conditions during 1953-57 affected l? materially. Precipitation from July to No- ylr, the critical period, was below average in ffthe 5 years, Figure 1. Moisture conditions more favorable in 1953, 1955 and 1957 than 54 and 1956. Although precipitation in both _; and 1955 was below the July to November its distribution was favorable for crop ction. The 1953 crop was made or mater- I aided by above-average rainfall in October. §_1955 crop was made on above-average rain- ‘in August and September. The 1957 season was characterized by heavy in rainfall, with below-average rainfall in i, st and September, followed by heavy and nged precipitation in the fall. The heavy .infall delayed harvest and resulted in high- han usual harvest and grade losses. Yields ‘me fields were reduced materially by root a damage. The combined effects of excess ure at harvest time and root borer damage l‘ ed 1957 irrigated yields below the 1953 and i< levels. zMoisture supplies were extremely short dur- August of 1954 and 1956, and dryland peanut .1 and grades were considerably below aver- ; The 1954 and 1956 dryland crops were made it tober and November rainfall. s-The weighted average increase in the yield ' p, 'gated peanuts per acre, the amount of wa- ‘ sed and the increase in yield per acre-inch p): applied are shown in Table 5. The re- _ shown .in Table 5 are averages for individual s during 1953-57 ; they reflect the effects of ii erent combination of practices applied un- vdifferent management. During the 5 years, der range of difference occurred between irri- L. and dryland yields on individual farms, 4, than is shown in the averages in Table _=_'l‘hese year-to-year differences on individual ,1. reflect the effects of a variety of condi- V. The conditions under which the study re- {ed was conducted does not permit determi- ‘on of causes or effects that might have influ- j... yields, either beneficially or adversely. The lted yields obtained in 1955 and 1956 give indication, however, that as growers gain I experience, the general level of irrigated uction may be raised. The 1957 yields were i " than were expected because of heavy rains est time. i‘ I._ n addition toi increased yields, irrigation has ved the quality of peanuts. In 1953 and _, when moisture was fairly adequate, irri- and dryland peanutsdiffered little in qual- , Under the short moisture conditions of 1954 956, however, irrigated peanuts graded 12 points above those produced on dry land. In SEASONAL PRECIPlTATlON-JULY-NOVEMBER Five months total INCHES MONTHLY PRECIPITATION LEGEND i {XXI Y 2Z2: Average I934 '52 Total i953 u ‘Q54 i 3x11 Y \ \ ‘El " I955 ll August I’, n I956 V IIIIIIA I951 as September October November F o é 4 é é r6 INCHES Figure 1. Total and monthly precipitation during the irrigation season. Based on weather bureau records obtained at Dublin and Stephenville. Texas. 1954, a year of low production, a difference of 25 points in grade was worth $3.05 per bushel, in- cluding the bonus. Irrigation also increased the top growth of peanuts with a consequent increase in quantity of hay produced. On some farms, the additional hay produced contributed to the income from the irrigated peanut enterprise. Yields of irrigated peanut hay during the 5 years ranged from 12 to 40 bales per acre on individual farms, with an overall average of 26 (80-pound) bales per acre. Yields of peanut hay produced on dry land have ranged from practically nothing to 15 bales per acre; the 5-year average yield was only 6.6 bales. per acre. TABLE 5. INCREASE IN YIELD OF PEANUTS PER ACRE RESULTING FROM IRRIGATION. FIVE SELECTED FARMS. HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY. COMANCHE AND ERATH COUNTIES, TEXAS. 1953-57 Water Average increase Increase Farm number applied in yield per per acre per acre‘ acre-inch Acre-inches Bushels Bushels 1 5.08 18.57 3.66 2 6.25 13.30 2.13 3 6.28 26.82 4.26 4 8.02 21.64 2.70 5 6.33 21.96 3.38 All farms average 6.59 20.37 3.09 ‘Increase in yield oi irrigated peanuts over the yield of pea- nuts grown under dryland conditions on the same farms. 7 With irrigation, the harvest date is delayed to take advantage of the full growing season. This has resulted in damage from frost or rain on most 0f the hay crops. In 1955 and 1957, much of the hay crop was damaged so seriously that it was not baled. In 1954 and 1956, some of the dryland hay crops were so scant that baling was impracticable and the crops were not har- vested. IRRIGATION COSTS Production of peanuts was an established dryland enterprise on the five farms included in the study. The introduction of irrigation has not led to adoption of new crops or new production practices other than those associated with appli- cation of water. It has led to higher seeding rates, increased use of fertilizer and more inten- sive hoeing and cultivating. Irrigation costs, therefore, include both the cost of water and its application, along with the cost of the added pro- duction measures required because of irrigation, Table 6. These costs do not reflect the total cost of producing irrigated peanuts. The basic land preparation, seeding, cultural and harvesting costs that would be associated with production of a peanut crop on dry land, along with land and management costs, are not included. Costs shown in Table 6 reflect the average annual per acre cost of irrigation on the indivi- dual farms, along with the 5-year average cost for all farms. The cost on individual farms has fluctuated widely, depending on the amount of water used, the necessity for intensifying certain production measures and the differences in yields of irrigated and dryland peanuts. Differences between the average cost per acre of irrigation on individual farms reflect the combined effects of farm differences in invest- ment per acre irrigated, production practices, yields and management, Tables 3, 4 and 5. The labor cost listed in Table 6 include actual number of labor hours required to lay move and retrieve sprinkler lines at a cost o cents per hour. Except for the time spent in ’ ing out and retrieving the sprinkler system labor ordinarily used in irrigation was expe at the rate of 1 or possible 2 hours a day d the irrigation season. Depreciation and interest on investme irrigation facilities is incliided as a cost in 6. Consequently, the total cost entry is no actual cash cost. Approximately 48 perce the average irrigation cost of $46.64 per acr . $22.65, is depreciation and interest on invest (overhead). As the overhead costs apply on the investment in irrigation facilities, all a head costs are included in the water-cost se in Table 6. Slightly more than 62 percent of the I water cost per acre is overhead-depreciation interest. This is not distributed evenly a the components of water cost. percent of the average annual pumping cost, percent of the storage cost and 55 percent o distribution cost, exclusive of the labor req to distribute water, is in the form of overhe Overhead costs are emphasized since are commonly overlooked in appraising irrig benefits. Although overhead costs are not For exampl -. . parent in any given year, they are real costs. I - a period of time, they become especially appa ' Added costs of seed, fertilizer, cultiv and harvest are cash outlays. Cost of labor irrigation and added hoeing are calculated as ~ costs, but usually they are performed by th erator. The actual cash outlays, therefore, w be somewhat lower than indicated above. The irrigation cost per acre has ranged f a low of $22 to a high of $101 per acre on ' vidual farms, Table 7. The 5-year average TABLE 6. AVERAGE ANNUAL IRRIGATION COST PER ACRE, FIVE SELECTED FARMS, HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY. COMA AND ERATH COUNTIES, TEXAS, 1953-57 Water cost per acre-inch‘ Farm number Water Irrigation Added costs of production measures per acr owing to irrigation labor cost per Pump- Stor- Distrib- Ferti- . Cu1ti- Har- ing age ution Total acrez acres Seed lizer‘ Hoemg vation vest5 -— — — - — — — — Dollars — —— — — — — — 1 2.71 0.12 3.51 6.34 2.62 0. 0. I 0.62 0.26 6.54 2 1.91 .03 2.13 4.07 1.65 0. 1.91 .31 .86 7.81 3 3.21 .09 2.96 6.26 1.95 1.39 1.61 .55 .33 10.43 4 2.03 .06 2.32 4.41 2.19 .60 2.48 .83 .27 6.25 5 3.55 .08 3.74“ 7.37 2.82 0. 3.09 .37 0. 10.39 Average all farms 2.38 0.07 2.64 5.09 2.04 .41 1.87 .50 .49 8.35 IBO7|BUICJ|B I C‘! € ‘Per acre-inch oi water applied with energy at 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. “Includes both overhead and operating cost. “Based on a rate of 75 cents per hour. ‘Includes insect control costs. “Based on custom threshing and baling rates. “Gasoline-fueled plant, other butane fueled. 8 r 3 I 7. ADDED ANNUAL AND FARMS, HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY, d is shown in Table 7. n Table 7 are net returns from irrigation, gas such, reflect the difference between re- from the sale of increased production 0f , grade improvements on the part of the hat presumably would have been produced ryland operation and the sale of the ad- ir»: hay minus the costs attributable to or ted with irrigation. IRRIGATION RETURNS e added returns per acre from irrigated ‘l1; as compared with peanuts produced on cost per farm ranges from $37.96 to $63.34 _e. The overhead part of these costs has 'ed to the extent indicated by the range acre costs on individual farms. Overhead i- or less a fixed cost with the size dic- ‘15 the investment in irrigation facilities on ual farms. Most of the year-to-year varia- costs of irrigation on individual farms re- om differences in the cost of harvesting of the crop that is attributable to irri- The returns ferences in costs and returns between in- farms from year to year reflect the ef- of seasonal weather conditions on the par- ticular combination of resources and management practices of individual farm operators. Because of these differences, shown in Tables 1-6, there is no valid basis for summarizing the 5-year re- sults for the farms. Each farm represents a dif- ferent production situation each year. For this reason, the’25 production situations are reported individually in Table 7. The evaluation of results is based on the principle of added returns minus added costs. Con- sequently, the higher net returns from irrigation are more likely to be realized in years when non- irrigated peanut yields are low, Table 4. and 1954 and 1956 entries in Table 7. Conversely, the low- est net returns ‘are obtained during years when yields of nonirrigated peanuts are higher, Tables 4 and 7. The net returns in 1957 are low because of harvest and grade losses resulting from rain- fall in October and November, Figure 1. The cost data in Table 6 are 5-year averages for the respective farms. Although there is a dif- ference of approximately $21 per acre between the highest and lowest average costs, average cost figures tend to obscure the wide variation characteristic of this type of farm operation. As ~- - shown in Table 7, the range between the highest and lowest cost per acre on individual farms dur- AVERAGE NET RETURNS FROM IRRIGATED PEANUT PRODUCTION, FIVE SELECTED COMANCHE AND ERATI-I COUNTIES, TEXAS, 1953-57 Irrigated Added receipts‘ Added costs” Net added returns R9535“ ,_ adumber Year peanut invest a acreage Per acre Total Per acre Total Per acre Total ment“ Acres -— — — — — — — Dollars — — — — — — — PerCent 1957 18.0 102.31 1,842 63.06 1,135 39.27 707 13.0 1956 27.0 107.50 2,902 40.10 _ 1.083 67.37 1.819 41.1 1955 20.0 59.50 1,198 39.99 800 19.90 398 9.2 1954 30.0 79.02 2,371 36.19 1,086 42.83 1.285 29.7 1953 20.0 74.08 1,482 46.39 928 27.70 554 12.8 average 23.0 85.16 1,959 42.26 1,006 41.43 953 20.9 1957 82.0 68.00 5,576 40.27 3.303 27.71 2,273 16.0 1956 76.0 99.49 7,561 47.34 3.598 52.14 3.963 27.9 1955 101.5 59.15 6.004 33.79 3,430 25.36 2,574 20.9 1954 83.0 110.85 9,810 37.98 3.153 80.20 6.657 72.7 1953 85.0 43.80 3,723 31.82 2.498 14.41 1,225 18.5 average 85.5 76.43 6,535 37.96 3.197 39.65 3.338 29.6 1957 40.0 105.10 4,204 69.05 2.462 43.55 1,742 16.3 1956 60.0 148.75 8,925 61.60 3,696 87.15 5,229 49.2 1955 60.0 59.23 3,554 35.58 2.135 23.65 1.419 16.4 1954 25.0 297.32 7,433 100.93 2,523 196 40 4,910 72.9 1953 40.0 45.36 1,814 35.11 1.404 10.25 410 6.1 average 45.0 115.24 5,186 55.60 2,504 59.64 2,684 30.9 1957 75.0 45.43 3,407 32.77 2.458 12.65 949 8.7 1956 76.3 137.42 10,485 53.03 4.047 84.37 6.438 64.9 1955 32.0 66.67 2,133 44.05 1,410 22.59 723 19.0 1954 12.5 125.48 1,568 80.72 1,090 38.24 478 12.8 = .. 1953 13.0 108.19 1,406 78.15 1,016 30.00 390 10.4 I, average 41.8 91.00 3,800 47.99 2,004 42.99 1,795 27.9 ' 1957 27.0 95.66 2,583 60.09 1,623 35.55 960 14.4 1956 21.0 160.95 3,380 83.68 1,757 77.28 1,623 25.1 1955 18.5 115.18 2,131 62.87 1,163 52.32 968 21.4 1954 17.5 84.16 1,473 51.53 902 32.62 571 12.6 1953 17.5 69.93 1,224 56.43 988 13.48 236 5.5 20.3 91.09 2,158 63.34 1.286 42.94 871 16.4 _i average value of increased peanut and hay production plus grade improvements. attributable to or associated with irrigation only. V. income received from investment in irrigation facilities. Management is the same as on dryland farms. ing 1953-57 amounted to $26.87, $15.52, $65.82, $47.95 and $32.15 0n farms numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively. For the five farms the range between the highest ($100.93) and the lowest ($31.82) cost per acre during the 5 years amount- ed to $69.11. Added gross receipts also varied widely be- tween individual farms in the same year and on individual farms in different years. For instance, there was a difference of $253 per acre between the lowest ($43.80) and the highest ($297.32) ad- ded gross receipts per acre. The range between the highest and lowest added gross receipts per acre on individual farms during this 5-year per- iod amounted to $48, $67, $252, $92 and $91 on farms numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively. As this evaluation turns on the value of add- ed production less added costs. the highest added receipts tend to be paired with the highest added costs. Likewise, the lowest added receipts are paired with the lowest added cost. Because of this receipt and cost pairing, the range in net added returns is similar to the range in added gross receipts. The average net gain per farm from produc- tion of irrigated peanuts during 1953-57 ranged from $39.65 to $59.64 per acre. The lowest net return received in a particular year was $10.25 per acre, whereas the highest was $196.40. These extremes in net return were received in succes- sive years on farm No. 3, Table 7. Production of irrigated peanuts was a prof- itable enterprise each year on all five farms in- cluded in the study, Table 7. The entries in the last two columns of Table 7 may be interpreted in two ways. The return 10 per farm shows the net gain, in addition t0 value of the operator’s labor, which is incl as a cost, received on each farm each year. all costs connected with the conduct of the gated enterprise are covered by the entries der “added costs,” the “net added returns farm” may be construed as management inc ' The net added return per farm is expre i. as a return on investment, shown in final col of Table 7. This item reflects the added inc A from the investment in irrigation facilities. agement is assumed to be the same as befor c the dryland farm. The actual returns on in ment amounted to 2.5 percentage points - l than is indicated in Table 7. An interest ch ’ of 5 percent on half the amount invested in gation facilities was included as an added cos The results obtained on these farms are nificant in themselves. Of even greater si ' cance, however, is the demonstrated fact v small heads of water, Table 2, high invest costs per acre irrigated, Table 3, and conseq high-cost water, Table 6, can be used profit with crops of high value, Table 7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Particular credit is due to five coopera i~ farmers whose records and assistance made study possible. Electric power consumption records and c were provided by Ben Templeton, manager, E County Rural Electrification Cooperative A l. ciation, Stephenville, Texas. Max Tharp, ass t ant head, Southern Field Research Section, A cultural Research Service, USDA, Washin D. C., assisted in the preparation of this repo [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] State-wide Researc The Texas Agricultural Experiment Statio is the public agricultural research ageii of the State of Texas. and is one of te parts oi the Texas AcSrM College Syste Location of field research units of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and cooperating agencies IN THE MAIN STATION, with headquarters at College Station, are 16 su matter departments, 2 service departments, 3 regulatory services an administrative staff. Located out in the major agricultural areas of Tex 21 substations and 9 field laboratories. In addition, there are 14- coope O R I Z A O N stations owned by other agencies. Cooperating agencies include the Forest Service, Came and Fish Commission of Texas, Texas Prison Sy U. S. Department of Agriculture, University of Texas, Texas Technol College, Texas College of Arts and Industries and the King Ranch. experiments are conducted on farms and ranches and in rural homes. THE TEXAS STATION is conducting about 400 active research projects, gro in 25 programs, which include all phases of agriculture in Texas. A l these are: Conservation and improvement of soil Beef cattle Conservation and use of water Dairy cattle Grasses and legumes Sheep and goats Grain crops Swine O P E R A T I O N Cotton and other fiber crops Chickens and turkeys Vegetable crops Animal diseases and parasites Citrus and other subtropical fruits Fish and game Fruits and nuts Farm and ranch engineering Gil seed crops Farm and ranch business Ornamental plants Marketing agricultural produc Brush and weeds Rural home economics Insects I Rural agricultural economics Plant diseases Two additional programs are maintenance and upkeep, and central servi ' AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH seeks the WHATS, the Research results are carried t0 Texas farmers, gvHgsldthef WHENS‘ the WHERES and the Hows o! un re s o pro lems which confront operators of farms ranchmen and homemaker 5 by county agents and ranches. and the many industries depending on _ _ _ or serving agriculture. Workers of the Main Station and specialists of the Texas Agricultural Ex- and _the field units oi the Texas Agricultural Experiment _ S _ Stagpn seek diligently to find solutions to these tension ervice P" ems- fiedearcé n95 jOIWlOffOll/iii flOgFQA/I