BULLETIN 931 MAY 1959
51/7
. 5 5A

' Econon1ics of Water Management for

' Cotton and Grain Sorghum Production,

' High Plains

in cooperation with the
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

R. D. LEWIS, DIRECTOR. COLLEGE sTATlOiN, TEXAS

SUMMARY

Improved water management affords an al-
ternative to the measures commonly used to off-
set the effects of a declining water supply. In
many situations, Where the continued decline in
water levels has offset the increase in water sup-
ply from new wells, lowered pumps and installa-
tion of underground delivery systems, a changed
water management program may be the only
means of avoiding a return to dryland farming.

Because of competition for water during the
first 2 weeks of August‘, the independently de-
veloped cotton and grain sorghum irrigation
practices that maximize yields cannot be advan-
tageously combined on the same farm. There-
fore, the management program must be modified
to minimize the effects of competing demands for

r water.

Four alternative water management systems
may be followed if the operator prepares for
them in advance. These alternatives, designated
in this report as water management systems 1,
2, 3 and 4, differ only after August 1. With
system 1, which uses the smallest amount of Wa-
t'er, only cotton is irrigated after August 1. With
system 2, which uses a little more water than
system 1, a full-season hybrid sorghum is the
only crop irrigated after August 1. System 3
combines the cotton irrigation program of sys-
tem 1 with irrigation of sorghum hybrids plant'-
ed about July 1. In system 4, the first water ap-
plication on the full-season sorghum hybrids is
made as in system 2, after which the water is
shifted to the late-planted sorghum hybrids.
Since systems 3 and 4 are heavy water users,
they should not be used regularly.

The cotton-grain sorghum planting ratio of
1 acre of cotton to 1.75 acres of grain sorghum
(seven-eighths acre of full-season sorghum hy-

" brids and seven-eighths acre of short-season sor-

ghum hybrids) permits the use of the most ad-
vantageous water management system on Au-
gust 1. The cotton-grain sorghum planting ratio
of 1:1.75 acres is about the same as the ratio of
cotton to sorghum under the 1957 cotton acre-
age allotment programs.

For appraisal purposes, the cotton-sorghum
planting ratio of 1:1.75 is converted to a man-
agement unit of 2.75 acres. Grain sorghum pre-
planting irrigation occurs at‘ a time when the
water is not needed on cotton; grain sorghum re-
ceives a postplanting irrigation only when it is
more profitable to use the water on sorghum
than on cotton. The management unit‘ approach
permits a determination of the most economic
water use, irrespective of the head of water

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study includes the work of a number of
agencies and individuals concerned with various
phases of the hydrologic and agricultural prob-
lems of the High Plains. The principal sources
of information are listed under “Literature Ci-

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
   
 
  
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
   
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
  

available. Thus, the water management sys '
that‘ is more profitable with a head of 135 y
lons per minute also is most profitable with
head of 540 gallons per minute, in that its i
will return more or lose less than other alte I
tives. *

Based on the 1946-56.._a‘,verage prices 
ceived for cotton lint, cottonseed and grain c,
ghum, water management system 2 is m
profitable. At the yield levels used, system’
returned more or lost less than system 1 in 9
the 11 years, 1946-56. —

With management‘ system 2 and 1946-
average cotton and sorghum grain prices, t
tenant’s annual residual return—the amo
available to defray his portion of water cost"
on a typical 320-acre fully irrigated farm wo
be $22.15 per acre. This constitutes his 
over point for water costs; that is, his expe
tures for water cannot exceed this annual amo,
over a period of time without dissipating his I
erating capital or reducing his income bel
what he might obtain from comparable dryl p
farming. Irrigated farming is more profita
than dry farming, his principal alternative,
the extent that his annual per acre water n»:
are below the breakover point. ~

The annual residual return, under the sag
conditions, to the landlord of this typical fa 
would be $14.40 per acre. This constitutes t
landlord’s maximum feasible expenditure for W
ter—-his breakover point. It is the amount ava
able to defray the cost of providing and mail
taining a well and pump, to pay interest on t
cost of irrigation facilities, exclusive of the pu
power unit and to provide a return on that p
of his investment that exceeds the value of l.
undeveloped land plus irrigation developme
costs per acre. Like the tenant, the landown
cannot exceed his breakover point for water a
penditures without‘ reducing his net income i:
low that from comparable dryland farming.

The owner-operator’s breakover point I‘
water expenditures is slightly higher than thy
total of the tenant and landlord at all price le
els. He combines the receipts and, with one x‘
ception, the expense of both tenant and lan
owner in one operation. The landlord has so t
farm supervisory expenses that are not requir,
or that. are taken care of in normal operatio
by the owner-operator. With system 2, and wit
cotton and sorghum grain prices at the 1946-5
average, the breakover price for water for a_
owner-operator of the typical 320-acre farm '
about $38 per acre. a

ted.” Particular credit is due E. L. Langsfo 
and Max Tharp, Farm Economics Research 
vision, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. if
partment of Agriculture, for their assistance. .

  
    
  
 
  
   
  
  
  
    
   
   
  
  
   
   
  
  
    
  
   
   
  
   
   
  
 
  
 
   
  
  

‘NTINUED CHANGE HAS BEEN characteristic of
griculture in the High Plains. Some changes
j been made gradually; others, such as
f. anization and irrigation, developed rapidly
 they were underway. Irrigated agriculture
arts of the High Plains now is faced with
yer adjustment. The extent of this adjust-
twill be governed largely by local water sup-
conditions. In some parts of the area, rela-
Y few adjustments may be required. In
’ s, where the water supply has deteriorated,
wdjustment may require a return to dryland
111g.

Irrigation began in the area about 1911 but
fof little consequence until after the mid-
’-s. Technological improvements and higher
 for farm products during the years just
1e, during and immediately after World War
imulated a substantial expansion of irri-
1 farming. By 1948, about 1.4 million acres
' being irrigated from 10,000 wells (1). Irri-
_n development since 1948 has continued at
'_ celerated rates of the late forties. The 1955
I s of Agriculture reports that in 1954 there
_ slightly more than 2.5 million acres of irri-
"é land in the 12 counties where most of the
ted lands are located. This was an in-
1- of slightly more than 1 million acres over
f= 949 acreage reported by the Census. The
f recent, though unofficial, estimate is that
57 in the same 12 counties about 3.5 mil-
gacres were irrigated from approximately
fl wells (2).

jThe expansion in irrigated acreage since
has been accompanied by a sharp increase
e rate of water use per acre. Water use
ifrom an average of 11 acre-inches per acre
47-49 to 17 acre-inches during the drouth
. of 1950-56 (3)9 This accelerated demand
round water supplies, combined with less-
frecharge during the drouth, has caused a de-
i‘, in Water levels and a reduction in well

ctively, agricultural economist, Farm Economics
 Division, Agricultural Research Service, U. S.
i": ment of Agriculture; professor, Department of
'cultural Economics and Sociology, Texas Agricul-
_ Expeiment Station; formerly superintendent and
ierly assistant‘ irrigation engineer, Substation No.
bbock, Texas.

.0- on information compiled from various sources by
 . Broadhurst, chief hydrologist, High Plains Under-
nd Water Conservation District No. 1, Lubbock.
also “Use of Irrigation Water on the High Plains”

 Economics of Water Management for Cotton and
l Grain Sorghum Production, H 1gb Plains

WM. F. HUGHES, A. C. MAGEE, DON JONES and EARNEST L. THAXTON, J R.*

A systematic water-level measuring program
was started in 1937 by the State Board of Water
Engineers and the U. S. Geological Survey. The
changes in water levels recorded as a result of
this measuring program are shown in Figure 1.
Since 1937 there has been an average decline of
approximately 42 feet in regional static water
levels. The decline has not been distributed
evenly over the area. It ranges from about 10
feet on the outer edges to over 80 feet in small
areas near the east-central part of the ground
water basin. Throughout most of the more
heavily developed portions, the total decline
ranges from 30 to 5_0 feet (4).

CONTENTS
Summary ...................................................................... .. 2
Acknowledgments ...................................................... .. 2
Introduction .................................................................. .. 3
Purpose ........................................................................ .. 4
Most Economic Water Use ...................................... .. 4
Basis for Crop-water-management Programs  5
Crop Growth Characteristics .......................... .. 5
Water Requirements .......................................... .. 5
Irrigation Programs .......................................... ._ 6
Planting Dates .................................................... .. 7
Crop Yields .......................................................... .. 7
Basic Crop-water-managemerrt Program .......... .. 7
Alternative Water-management Systems ...... _. 8
Evaluation of Alternative Management
Systems .................................................................. .. 9
Maximum Feasible Expenditures for Water ...... ..13
Tenant’s Breakover Point for Water
Expenditures .......................................................... __l4 '
Gross Receipts .................................................... __14
Specified Operating Expenses ........................ ._14
Harvest and Associated Costs ........................ _.14
Miscellaneous Expenditures .............................. __14
Alternative Management Income ____________________ "14
Residual Returns to Water .............................. __14
Landowner’s Breakover Point for Water
Expenditures .......................................................... __16
Owner-operator’s Breakover Point for
Water Expenditures .......................................... __ 16
Other Situations ........................................................ ___16
Literature Cited .......................................................... __16
Appendix Tables ........................................................ _.16

+ IO
l- O
1.1.1
E ANNUAL
FLUCTUAT/O/V \
z 193s + .05‘
"-|0- 1939 - .92‘
1.11 1940 - 2.24‘ \
g 1941 + 3.61‘
4 1942 + .3?‘
I 1943 -1.74‘ .
0-20- 1944 - .83‘ a
1945 - 1.86‘
E, 1946 - 1.62‘ \
2 1941 - 2.60 \
194a - 2.81‘
5’ — 30" 1949 - .90‘
2 1950 - 1.30‘
D w51 -2J0
0 1952 - 3.90‘
2 w53 -490‘
—40" 1954 - 5.60‘
1955 - 4.50‘
1956 - 5.60‘
195? - 2.33‘
- 5O I
1937 1941 1945 1949 1953 1957

YEARS

Figure l. Accumulated and annual decline in regional
static water levels, High Plains, 1937-57. (Data from U. S.
Geological Survey and Board oi Water Engineers.)

Before 1949, the decline in static water
level was moderate and its effects, except in iso-
lated areas, were economically insignificant.
Since 1949, the decline has exhibited a progres-
sive trend, and combined with a decrease in well
yields, it is becoming economically significant.
The principal physical effect of a lessened Water
supply is reflected by a reduction in the amount
of water that can be made available within the
period of time that it can be used to best ad-
vantage.

Changes in the water level during the past
8 years suggests a possible physical exhaustion
of the water supplies, particularly in those areas
where the water bearing‘ formations are thin.
The cost of meeting part of this decline, reported
in TAES Bulletin 828, indicates that economic
exhaustion is likely to precede physical exhaus-
tion (5).

Between 1950-54 the rate of water use in-
creased 54 percent; static water levels declined
18 feet between 1950-54 and 12.4 feet between
1955-57. Heretofore, these declines have been
offset by drilling new wells, lowering pumps,
increasing the hours of pump operation, in-
stalling closed delivery systems, land leveling
and more intensive land preparation and farm-
ing practices. These measures have been effec-
tive, but expensive. The cost of such measures
installed during 1950-54 averaged above $6,600
per farm; total water cost rose from an average
of about $7 per acre during 1947-49 to about
$15 in 1954 (6, 7).

As water levels decline, the effectiveness of
some of the measures previously used to offset

4

MOST ECONOMIC WATER us

this condition likely will be short lived. If
their effectiveness is lost, the operator has 1
alternatives of adding more expensive and r
sibly short-lived measures, provided he has

already exhausted this possibility, of redu
irrigated acreage, or of applying less water Y
acre. :

Management programs involving combl
tions of crops, varieties, planting dates and i
gation schedules, and rates of water use aff
an alternative to the measures heretofore re
upon to meet reductions in water suppl
Where these measures have been installed r
their effectiveness has been lost or diminis‘
some modification of existing water manav
ment programs may be the only alternative =_
return to dryland farming. ‘

PURPOSE

This study evaluates some of the more pr
ising alternative irrigation management p,
grams and is reported in two parts. The f"
part concerns the most economic use of water j
der various crop-water management progra
The second part deals with the determination
the maximum expenditure for irrigation wa
that is economically feasible. It is based on<
evaluation of the results that might be expec i
on an established irrigated farm assuming (
adaptations of the individually developed co i,
and grain sorghum irrigation programs t
have maximized cotton and grain sorghum yie
in experimental work and general practice, (
the crop production practices and requiremep
in common use during 1955, (3) the use of .-
brid grain sorghum and (4) the crop yields 1-
tained in station and off-station experimen
work, adjusted to a level that might be expec i
under general farm conditions. ..

The possible effects of using fertilizers
improved cultural practices are not included. _
future research results show that these measur
are practicable, their contributions can be 1
praised separately. The study emphasizes t‘
short-run considerations of the farmer interest
in improving his situation. The possible adve c,
effects on regional water supplies are consider
but not specifically evaluated. i

Where water, rather than land, is the chi
limiting factor, as in the High Plains, the p 1
mary management objective is the developme
of a cropping and water-use program that 
provide maximum returns per unit of water ‘f
rather than maximum yields per acre. The ma
agement problem is complicated by changi 
cost-price relationships, acreage allotment p =Y
grams and the lack of suitable alternative  .
crops. _ "

Acreage allotments and the lack of suitab
alternative cash crops may impair the operator’,

 
 
  
  
   
   
   
  
    
   
  
   
  
 
  
  
   
   
   
   
 
 

   
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
   
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
  
  

ortunity to get the highest returns from wa-
 but they simplify his management problem
_l. reducing the number of alternatives. Thus,
w. problem of maximizing returns from water
‘Ives a determination of the most remunera-
 use of water applied in specified amounts at
ific times on cotton or grain sorghum. The
 e of cotton and grain sorghum and the yield
nse of each crop to a specific amount of
i r applied at a particular time provide the
is for selecting the most economic water-use
gram. .

= The quantity of water that can be made
‘ilable during a given period of time is gov-
O by the yield of the well or wells providing
'. farm water supply. Well yields differ among
p. s and between wells; however, except for
r effect on water costs, these differences do
1 affect the determination of the most eco-
ic water use.

{A The most economic water use program does
necessarily mean a profitable irrigation en-
rise. With irrigation already established,
most economic use is the one that provides
flargest return. It will contribute to the suc-
 of an irrigated enterprise, but water and
 iated costs may be such that the whole en-
rise is unprofitable.

ais for Crop-water-management Programs

QVariations in weather before and after plant-
as well as from year to year, preclude strict
rence to any rigid timetable of planting
 irrigation schedules or rates of water ap-
tion. Under High Plains conditions, any
‘ or water-management program must be
ble; it must be designed to permit adjust-
' as dictated by weather or the price put-

lAll crops have definite stages of develop-
in which a shortage of water has a de-
Iing effect on growth and subsequent yields.

These stages of development also are the periods
of peak water requirement. Although weather
may vary the time by a few days, the period of
peak water requirement can be expected to be-
gin on cotton and grain sorghum about 60 and
45 days, respectively, after planting (Figure 2).

The moisture provided by irrigation per-
mits a wide choice in crop varieties and planting
dates. Selection of varieties and adjustments in
planting dates to minimize or to prevent the si-
multaneous occurrence of peak water use periods
by crops provides one method of coping with a
limited water supply.

All management programs involve some sac-
rifice of the yield levels that might be realized
with a water supply sufficient to meet simul-
taneous peak water requirements. A knowledge
of the probable effects of water shortages and
of the yield response of individual crops irri-
gated at particular stages of plant growth is
basic in determining the most advantageous use
of water. In addition, certain limitations im-
posed by plant growth characteristics must be
taken into account.

A management system should be designed

around :

Crop growth characteristics. Cotton is in-
determinate in its fruiting habits—it will con-
tinue to grow and fruit until killed by frost. Be-
cause of this, it can use water effectively over
an extended period of time. Grain sorghum is
terminal in its fruiting habits—it fruits only
once. Because of this, it is extremely critical in
its water requirements.

Water requirements. The rate of water use
by cotton and grain sorghum is shown in Figure
2. The daily rate of use by cotton increases just
before the first bloom stage, which is approxi-
mately 60 days after planting and continues at
an accelerated rate until the bolls begin to ma-
ture. The daily rate of water use by grain sor-
ghum increases at a faster rate than cotton,

 

A. DAILY RATE OFWATER USE AT VARIOUS STAGES OF PLANT GROWTH

r
l

Firs! open bo/l

 

  

 

i
i;


  

 

-AVERAGE DATE OF FIRST KlLLlNG FROST

   
  
 
 

A. JAM FEB.

   

Dolly consumptive valor use by g  ‘A
am” _ \l7ololfalod
—— —- “Full sooson” sorghum hybrids if“ 55 \ ‘f,
- -—- - i - —— “Short uoaon" sorghum hybrids \{/\.gf>m'ng

,  _

i   \~\

f2 \ '\

l’ .

‘l

—II —— in i  i i — i- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~COTTON I

l -- i i — » - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Jruu SEASON“ SORGHUM HYBRIDS l

- i --~ l» - -- - »}~ - - - - - 1L- - - - - - - - - - - "snow SEASON” soncnum nvapuus

_ PREPLANVTING IRRIGATION POSTPLANTlNG IRRIGATION l

< l i

r B. BA$|C IRRIIGATION §CHEDULE ll | Hanfiw d," .
MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. sEPr oar NOV. 05c.

A re 2. Basic irrigation schedules related to water requirements of cotton and grain sorghum at various stages of plant
growth.

5

Wprovides about half the total water required to ing to cotton land produces a greater net I

  
   
 
 
  
  
 
  
   
   
  
  
   
  
    
  
  
  
   
   
  
  

TABLE 1. AVERAGE YIELDS PER ACRE OF COTTON AND prgduge an irrigated Qgttgn Qr grain Sorg A

GRAIN SORGHUM REI‘I%§§5€A¥I%N1YUMBER AND TIME OF crop; These studies also show that an irriga’
program which provides an average 1A; acre-i‘
Grain soigiium of available water per day during July and r

gust for cotton, and during July, August :,

M59555” P5555555 Cotton   September _for grain sorghum meets the no
1"" hybrid hybiid water requirements of these crops (9, 10). _
_ _ _ Pounds _ _ _ _ Irrigation programs. Details of the irr'
Diyiami (no irrigation) 190 900 720 tion program that maximizes cotton yields a
Preplanting irrigation only 400 2,700 2,250 glVGIl III TAES 131111813111 838  Similar Inf
Prgplflrlliirllq irrigation P1115 440 mation for grain sorghum is given in T
0:: I31; 23:19:22“ - Bulletin 846 (10). _ Essentially, the progrg
Augusi ifrigation 49g consist of a preplanting irrigation for both c 
Qne August irrigation 3,300 2.750 followed by two postplanting irrigations ti v
Tw° August "ngallms 3-799 3'15" to prevent water stress at critical stages of p i
‘Yields obtained at the Lubbock station and in outlying tield growth (Flgure 2)_ 5 i“
tests, adjusted to a levelthat might reasonably be expected The preplanting irrigation, preferably
5nd“ 9555"“ “m” °°“d“‘°“S' one application, provides enough Water to b 

moisture levels in the soil profile up to field '
reaching a peak of 0.33 inches a day about 45 pacity throughout the root zone. Six-foot u‘
days after planting? The estimates of daily use files of Amarillo fine sandy loam or Pull r,
shown in Figure 2 reflect the average rate of clay loam, the predominant soil types, will hi
water use between measurements. approximately 9 and 12 inches of available VI
ter, respectively (9). The actual amount of 
ter that must be applied to bring these soils ,
to field capacity will depend on the amount
water already stored in the soil. - .

Because of its fruiting habits, cotton can
withstand a short period of water stress without
a heavy reduction in yield. Water stress at any
stage of development reduces grain sorghum

yields, particularly at the early bloom and soft The time of preplanting irrigation is _
dough stages. Water stress at these stages has necessarily critical. When cotton follows co n.
reduced yields on the average by 48 and 25 per- in the crop rotation, 3 or 4 months are availa
cent, respectively (8). for preplanting irrigation. When cotton folly.»

The total water requirements of cotton and Zggiliglilliclfngbggéiiiggioiai? ivrgfteiffallable for
grain sorghum vary from year to year depend- -
ing on planting date, seasonal temperatures, rel- Irrigation water applied before planting p"
ative humidity and wind movement. More vsia- vides a larger increase in yield per unit of '
ter is required in a hot season than in a re a- ter applied than Water applied after plant"
tively cool one. Results of studies reported in (Table 1). Also, at 1946-56 average cotton a

TAES Bulletins 838 and 846 show that rainfall grain sorghum prices, water applied before pla
_ turn than water similarly applied on grain 
2Data compiled by Morris Bloodworth, E. L. Thaxton, Jr. ghum (Table 2) - Because of the difference
and others. (Unpublished data.) planting dates for cotton and sorghum, preplai

TABLE 2. ESTIMATED ADDED RETURNS FROM DIFFERENT WATER APPLICATIONS

Quantity- Return per acre-inch‘ i

Number and type of watefi Per irrigation5 Average per acre-inch applied‘ I
0i iffigatbns Per int Accumu Full-season Short-season Full-season Short-set
ation lafiv ' Cotton grain grain Cotton grain grain “

g e sorghum sorghum sorghum sorghu 

— — Acre-inch — —5- — — — — — — — — — —— —- Dollars — — — — — — — — — -—:-*

Preplant irrigation 12 12 3.165 2.715 1.905 3.165 2.715 1.__i
Plus 1 postplanting i
irrigation 6 l8 1.79 2.07 1.72 2.70 2.50 1.84 j"
Plus 2 postplanting §
irrigations 6 24 2.25 1.04 1.35 2.59 2.28 1.72 

‘Added net return. before water, land and management expenses, at the 1946-56 average price received for cotton. cottons
and grain sorghum. Irrigated over dryland production.

zGross water requirements with 66.6 percent irrigation efficiency, net water requirements two-thirds that shown.
“Added net return per acre-inch from individual irrigations. pl
‘Added net return per acre-inch from accumulated water application. That is, the first entry, all three columns, reflects the.
erage added net return from 12 acre-inches of water, the second entry, the average return from the use of l8 acre-inchel;
water, and the third the average return from 24 acre-inches of water. l

“Net gain over average return from dryland farming.

6

  
 
   
  
  
   
   
  
    
 
   
 
   
    
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
   
 

g irrigation of both crops is possible ( Figure
. Thus, preplanting irrigation is a basic prac-
e in all water-management programs.

_ The irrigation program that maximizes cot-
_n and grain sorghum yields includes two irri-
tions after planting. These applications are
' y ed to restore soil moisture levels and prevent
ter stress at critical stages of plant develop-
ent (Figure 2). As with preplanting irriga-
.1 the amount of water required to restore
il moisture levels depends on temperature and
y the amount of precipitation received. For
f»: results even in the driest season, the post-
nting applications of water on cotton should
‘B exceed 4 acre-inches of available water per
're applied in a 14 to 18-day schedule. The
st postplanting application should begin at
e first bloom stage of plant development, ap-
 ximately 60 days after planting, and the sec-
d should be applied immediately following the
nclusion of the first postplanting application
). Postplanting irrigation on grain sorghum
volves the same rate of water application as
 on, but because of the more critical nature
Lsorghum water requirements, it should be ap-
ed in a shorter schedule beginning about 45
‘ys after planting (10).

A 4-inch (net) water application will re-
re soil moisture levels and meet the peak daily
ter requirements of cotton and grain sorghum
A about 9.5 and 12 days, respectively. It will
et the normal daily water requirement on both
ps for 16 days. Larger water applications
,ld lead to crop damage. Smaller amounts
_ uld not provide an adequate water supply un-

;.the application was based on a shorter sched-
' g Also, water losses from drying soil take a
portionately greater share of a small water
plication.

 
  
 
   
   
    
 
  
  
   
 
   
   
  
  
 

, Because of the relatively short cotton-grow-
f: season, irrigation should be terminated about
d-August. Withholding irrigation after this
' e may reduce yields, but it produces a con-
_ ently higher quality of cotton. The growing
- petition from synthetics and the wide dis-
 nts for short fibers and low grades empha-
A the need for consideration of quality cotton
all management programs. Irrigation of grain
 hum after late August or early September,
i ept on late plantings, seldom benefits a prop-
i irrigated crop (10).

 Planting dates. The usual planting season
,_ cotton ranges from late April through May,
ending on the weather. The soil usually is
.1 cool for rapid cottonseed germination before
V- A-pril. Yields, Qf cotton planted in June gen-
Nlly are low (11). Experience at the Lubbock
station shows that the best stands and fast-
§ growth are obtained on cotton planted from
'y 10 to May 20. Cotton planted during this
70d has a better chance of survival because
 more likely to escape the damaging effects
cool nights, cold winds, blowing sand and

seedling diseases. Low yields on late-planted
cotton and the relatively short cotton-growing
season make it undesirable to delay cotton plant-
ing; consequently, there is little or no room for
adjustment in cotton-planting dates.

The planting season for grain sorghum
ranges from late April through June. The pre-
ferred planting time, however, is between June
10 and June 20, approximately 30 days later
than the most desirable cotton-planting time.
Sorghum planted during this time enters its per-
iod of peak water requirement when rainfall and
temperature relations likely will be most favor-
able. Sorghum planted earlier grows off slowly
and enters the‘ period of peak ,water require-
ment at a time when rainfall and temperature
relations likely will be less favorable.

Until recently, sorghum planted during the
last part of June or early July did not produce
a consistently satisfactory yield. Development of
the higher yielding sorghum hybrids has changed
this. Some of the sorghum hybrids, such as
those in the 590 to 611 group, designated as
“short-season hybrids,” are suitable for late-sea-

son planting. Others, which outyield standard,

varieties by 20 percent, require the full growing
season to realize their potential. The latter
group is designated “full-season hybrids.” Sor-
ghum hybrids permit adjustment in planting
dates to reduce the conflict in irrigation water
requirements of cotton and sorghum that have
restricted sorghum irrigation during the critical
period, August 1-15.

Crop yields. The average cotton and grain
sorghum yields with an irrigation program as
outlined are shown in Table 1. These yields re-
flect the average production per acre that may
be obtained from a preplanting irrigation, the
average amount that may be added by one post-
planting application of water and the average
amount that may be added by two postplanting
applications of water. The net value added by
successive water increments—the part of the
yields that is attributable to a single irrigation—
provides the basis for selecting the most advan-
tageous place of water use.

Basic Crop-water-management Program

A crop-water-management program incor-
porating the most advantageous planting dates
and the cotton and grain sorghum irrigation pro-
gram that maximizes yields of both crops is used
to determine the most economic use of water.
Part of the details of this program are shown in
Figure 2.

This crop-water-management program in-
cludes preplanting irrigation» as a standard prac-
tice. Because of the relatively high return per
acre-inch of water applied before planting, this
practice must be included in any program de-
signed to obtain the highest return from the use
of water (Table 2).

Since the amount of precipitation during
the crop year cannot be determined in advance,
a rate of water use near the maximum amount
that may be required Was adopted. Using gross
water requirements, the program would require
for each crop a rate of 12 acre-inches per acre
applied in one 0r two applications before plant-
ing, and for postplanting irrigation, two appli-
cations of 6 acre-inches per acre each. With an
irrigation efficiency of 66.6 percent, the net pre-
planting water requirements are 8 acre-inches
per acre and the postplanting requirements are
4 acre-inches per acre for each application.

The midpoints of the preferred planting per-
iods, May 15 for cotton and June 15 for grain
sorghum, were selected as dates for planting all
of the cotton and half the grain sorghum acre-
age. The other half of the grain sorghum acre-
age would be planted to a short-season hybrid
about July 1 (Figure 2).

The postplanting irrigation on cotton would
be applied in a 16-day schedule beginning ap-
proximately 60 days after planting. With a
May 15 planting date, the first application of
water on cotton would begin about July 15. The
second postplanting irrigation, also applied in a
16-day schedule would follow immediately after
the first and terminate shortly after August 15.

Postplanting irrigation on grain sorghum
would be applied in a 14-day schedule beginning
approximately 45 days after planting for the
full-season hybrids and 40 days after planting
for the short-season hybrids. With a June 15
planting date, the first irrigation on the full-
season sorghum hybrids would begin on or about
August 1. The second would start immediately
after the first irrigation was concluded (Figure
2). With a July 1 planting date, the first post-

Mplanting irrigation on the short-season hybrids
would begin about August 10, followed immedi-

ately by the second application, which would end
during the first part of September.

Figure 2 shows that serious conflicts in de-
mand for water would be encountered about
August 1, if the independently developed cotton
and grain sorghum irrigation programs were
combined. Because of these conflicting demands
for water, it is not feasible to use the basic crop-
water-management program entirely. The full
basic program can be used only if (1) the water
supply is doubled to meet the simultaneous Au-
gust 1-15 demands, or (2) the acreage irrigated
during the postplanting period is reduced ap-
proximately 50 percent.

Neither of these alternatives provides an
economical approach. Increasing the farm wa-
ter supply is an expensive way of reducing con-
flicting water demands; moreover, the added
drain on water resources would aggravate fur-
ther the water supply situation. The approxi-
mate cost of increasing and maintaining farm
water supplies is given in TAES Bulletin 828
(5). Decreasing the irrigated acreage reduces

8

 
 
  
   
 
 
  
 
   
   
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
   
  
 
  
  
  
  
  

total operating costs some, but increases
overhead Water cost per acre and materially.
duces farm income. -

Since it is not feasible to use the crop-
ter-management program that maximizes ,
yields, the next best approach is to adopt a v‘
ation that incorporates the basic program "
much as possible. This involves a modifica
of the basic crop-water-manageriaent program
ginning at the time of the first conflict in
mand for water about August 1. a

Alternative Water-management Systems

There are five alternative Water-man
ment programs that may be followed begin ,
about August 1, if the operator has prepared
them in advance. For convenience, these wa
management programs are designated w'
management systems 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Sys 
1 to 4 are based on restricted crop acreages 
der crop-control programs. System 5 is bas
the unrestricted use of cotton acreage. '

For systems 1 to 4, a management unit i
acre of cotton, seven-eighths acre of full-se’
sorghum hybrids and seven-eights acre of s '_
season sorghum hybrids was adopted. Bec‘
of the difference in irrigation schedules (16 o,
on cotton, 14 days on grain sorghum) only 
eighths acre of grain sorghum can be irrig,
for each acre of cotton, and the cotton-grain
ghum planting ratio that permits the wi
choice in use of water during August is 1 _
of cotton to seven-eighths acre of full-season .
ghum hybrids and seven-eighths acre of sh
season sorghum hybrids. This planting rati
1 acre of cotton to each 1.75 acres total :__
sorghum is approximately the average co ,
grain sorghum planting ratio under 1957 co
acreage-allotment programs.

For management system 5, which is ba
on unrestricted cotton acreage, the manage J
unit is 2 acres of cotton and three-fourths =
of short-season sorghum hybrids. System 5
included to compare production situations a
and without cotton acreage restrictions, and‘
appraise situations where cotton acreage a
ment exceeds the acreage that can be irrig
during the postplanting irrigation season. _
effects of each individual irrigation on a pa -
ular crop can be appraised separately (Table
About August 1, the date of first conflict in 1
ter use, the operator has the choice of irriga I
cotton for the second time or of irrigating g
full-season sorghum hybirds for the first t'
Similarly, on or about August 15, if he has Q
pared for these alternatives in advance, thei,
erator has a further choice of irrigating the f_
season sorghum hybrid for the second time;
of applying water to the short-season hybrid ,-
the first time. '~

The section on crop growth characteriy
shows that the benefits of the second postpl
ing irrigation on grain sorghum, whether 

   

3. RATIO OF COTTON TO GRAIN SORGHUM ACREAGE. IRRIGATION SCHEDULES. AND GROSS WATER USE PER
MANAGEMENT UNIT ALTERNATIVE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM‘

I I ater

  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
  

“g Manage_ Irrigations Gross water use
.. g.
 nt Crops _ meat Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Totals
i em um planting’ planting planting planting
3 Acres — -— — Number — — — — — — — — Acre-inches — — — —
Cotton 1 1 2 12.0 12.0 24.0
 Grain sorghum, full-season 7/3 1 0 10.5 0 10.5
 Grain sorghum, short-season 7/8 1 0 10.5 0 10.5
f Total for management unit 23/4 1 33.0 12.0 45.0
v Cotton 1 1 1 12.0 6.0 18.0
 Grain sorghum, full-season 7/3 1 2 10.5 10.5 21.0
j Grain sorghum. short-season 7g 1 0 10.5 0 10.5
7 Total for management unit 23/4 1 33.0 16.5 49.5
a Cotton 1 1 2 12.0 12.0 24.0
1 Grain sorghum. full-season 7/3 1 0 10.5 ,0 10.5
T- Grain sorghum. short-season 7/3 1 2 10.5 10.5 21.0
‘  Total for management unit 23/4 1 33.0 22.5 55.5
’ Cotton 1 l 1 12.0 6.0 18.0
A; Grain sorghum, full-season 7/3 1 1 10.5 5.3 15.9
; Grain sorghum. short-season 7/8 1 2 10.5 10.5 21.0
 Total for management unit 23/4 1 33.0 21.8 54.8
2 Cotton 1 I 2 12.0 12.0 24.0
' Cotton 1 1 0 12.0 0 12.0
¥ Grain sorghum. short-season 3/4 1 2 9.0 9.0 18.0
i‘; Total for management unit 23/4 1 33.0 21.0 54.0

  

 on an irrigation efficiency of 66.6 percent.

    
  
  
   
  
 
   
  
   
    
  
   
   
  
  
   
  
 
 
 
  
   
  

ganagement systems 1 through 5. respectively.

n or short-season hybrids, cannot be re-
‘-.- unless the first postplanting irrigation has
‘ applied. The August 1-15 conflict in de-
ds for water between cotton and the full-
>- sorghum hybrids cannot be resolved in
tr of cotton without sacrificing the yield in-
Lents from both of the postplanting irriga-
‘s on sorghum. The last postplanting irriga-
3 on sorghum can be foregone, however, at
a; expense of only that part of the yield at-
g table to the last irrigation.

i‘ These alternatives provide the basis for wa-
management systems 1 to 4, any one of which
f be followed after August 1, the date of first
3' use conflict.

é In all management systems, water is applied
‘sorghum land before planting at a time that
y. not conflict with irrigation of cotton land
‘r ain sorghum, after planting, when the price
porghum grain makes it more profitable to
ate sorghum. The return per management
v of 2.75 acres, therefore, provides a basis
determining the most profitable use of water
rdless of the head of water available. For
it ple, if one management unit in a particular
agement system is more profitable than a
gement unit in another, an increase in the
gber of management units does not change
‘ relationship.  ‘

I The planting ratios, irrigation schedules and
10f Water per management unit in the five
‘ms are shown in Table 3. The plan of wa-
use after August 1 for the five systems is
 in Figure 3.

- anting irrigation in one or two, preferably one, application.

i: = reflect the gross amount of water applied to the individual crops in the management unit and the total amount, gross.
management unit of 23/4 acres. Gross water use per acre would be 16.4, 18.0. 20.2, 19.9 and 20.7 acre-inches, respectively.

The quantity of water use per management
unit for preplanting irrigation is the same in all
five systems. Water use after planting differs
between the various alternative systems, de-
pending on the acreage covered in postplanting
irrigation (Table 3 and Figure 3). The total
water use per management unit in systems 3, 4
and 5 is approximately 22 percent greater than
in system 1 and 10 percent greater than in sys-
tem 2.

Evaluation of Alternative Management Systems

Production, irrigation practices and water
requirements before August 1 are the same for
all five systems. Since systems 1 to 4, the four
alternative systems, stem from a common base,

IRRIGATION SCHEDULE! PREPLANTING POSTPLANTING
SYSTEM CROP IRRIGATIQNQNQ-U TIME OF APPLICATION

Col/on _ _ n g I T 2

BASIC Sarg/n/m nybgdswsfzg, £31331” n 2 _ a
Cairo/r 2 A 2

m | Snrgh/m nym/njj/tn/ seasoni 2 ..0.. n0...

" " shall season 2  -- Ho"

cum» o _J__  9- 

"“ 2 “"3"” ”’3”""~IZ’.§J'.ZZ”JL.~ 5  
Car/an I ~ 2 __|.i + p

~=~= ""¥"*-~:z:::'s::..~ a   ";_=_
Carton 2 '  0

m‘ 4 sorghum WW4" "gar/s $12,. “ 2 ‘i-lm-l-i 
Colfan 2 iii _z_
Cal/an 2 ....Q......._..Q..._

N0. 5 Sorghum IIyb/Msfsho/I snsnn” 2 l l, _L, __ l

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

I/Maaumm runner of water applications

Figure 3. Number and approximate time of irrigation in
the basic and five alternative water management systems.

TABLE 4. ESTIMATEI) CROP PRODUCTION AND GROSS
VALUE PER MANAGEMENT UNIT ALTERNATIVE WATER
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS‘

water Cotton Grain sorghum Gmss
man- value per
age- Pro- manage-
ment duction vslruoeszs 3 dfgtlaign $1215; ment
system oi lint unit’
Pounds Dollars Pounds — — Dollars — —
1 490 181.30 4,331 95.71 277.01
2 440 162.80 5.276 116.60 279.40
3 490 181.30 5.119 113.13 294.43
4 440 162.80 5.644 124.73 287.53
5 890 329.30 2,362 52.20 381.50

‘Management unit in systems 1 to 4 consists oi 1 acre cotton.
7/3 acre iull-season sorghum hybrids and 7/3 acre short-sea-
son sorghum hybrids. Management unit in system 5 consists
oi 2 acres cotton and 3/4 acre oi short-season sorghum hy-
brids.

, “Based on 1946-56 average prices received for cotton, cotton-

seed and grain sorghum.
“Includes value oi cottonseed.

the choice of the system to follow at the time of
the first water-demand conflict will be governed
first by prospective added net returns per man-
agement unit in the alternative systems, and sec-
ond by the amount of water required to obtain
these returns.

TABLE 5. ESTIMATED NET RETURNS PER MANAGEMENT
UNIT. ALTERNATIVE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS‘

Water management system

Item
1 2 3 4 5
— — — — —-—Dollars———-———————
Gross Receipts 277.01 279.40 294.43 287.52 381.50

Specified expenses2
Power and
machinery
Materials“ 10.09 10.09 10.09
Labor. including
water spreading 15.67 15.95 16.45 16.33 21.00
Harvest and as-
sociated costs 51.17 47.32 51.64 47.54 82.35

Direct water
costs‘ 16.92 18.80 21.06 20.68 20.30

29.44 29.44 29.44 29.44 40.62
10.09 17.64

Total specified
expenses 123.29 121.60 128.68 124.08 181.91

Net returns to

management

and overhead

Per management

units 153.72 157.80 165.75 163.45 199.59
Per acre 55.89 57.37 60.26 59.42 72.57
Per acre-inch oi

water applied“ " 3.42 3.19 2.99 2.98 3.70

‘Based on 1955-56 costs and 1946-56 average prices received
for cotton, cottonseed and grain sorghum.

2Based on production requirements and costs in Appendix
Tables 2 and 3. adjusted ior requirements oi various man-
agement systems.

"Seed and insecticides.

‘Includes iuel, oil and repair costs on typical 540 gpm. engine
equipped. butane iueled pumping plant.

“Management units in systems 1 to 4 consist oi 1 acre cotton.
7/3 acre iull-season sorghum hybrids and 7/3 acre short-sea-
son sorghum hybrids. Management unit in system 5 con-
sists oi 2 acres cotton and 3/4 acre oi short-season sorghum
hybrids.

“Gross water use oi 45, 49.5, 55.5, 54.8, and 54 acre-inches ior
systems l. 2. 3, 4 and 5. respectively.

l0

  
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
   
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
   
   
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
  

Since the choice between alternative Wa
management systems is not made until the f'
conflict in demand for water occurs (about
gust 1), almost all crop production expenses
cept harvest costs, will be the same irrespec
of the management system used. Table 1 sh
that the output resulting from single appli
tions of water can be appraised separately if y
applications are consideredgiiiia proper sequen
Also, the cost of making a single application
water and the cost of harvesting the added yi,
can be determined (Appendix Tables 2 and Y
The prospective added net return per increm
of water use, per irrigation in this instance, t
can be determined by multiplying the added p
duction by the prospective price and subtracti“
the added costs. 

Since the irrigation schedule is 16 days i
cotton and 14 days on both types of grain s
ghum, only seven-eighths acre of grain sorgh,
can be irrigated during the postplanting sea’
for each 1 acre of cotton. This difference in i 
gation schedule is the basis for the cotton-gr
sorghum planting ratio in the management a:
Thus, where the choice lies between irrigat'
cotton or grain sorghum on August 1, the co’
parison is based on the prospective added 1f
returns from one irrigation on 1 acre of co A
or two irrigations on seven-eighths acre of gr
sorghum. £

The following comparison between syste‘_'
1 and 2 illustrates this point. On August 1, f
place of water application should be selected: >
may be on cotton, where an application of 6 ac ‘
inches of water will produce 50 pounds of lit
cotton and 80 pounds of seed, or, on a full-s
son hybrid, where 10.5 acre-inches of water j
two applications on seven-eighths acre will p
duce 945 pounds of grain (7/8 x [3780-2700,
(Table 1). *

Obviously, the prices of cotton and gra‘
sorghum have an important bearing on the p if
pective added net returns from irrigating aft
August 1. For instance, comparison based i3
1955-56 cost and the prices received for c0
ton lint, cottonseed, and grain sorghum durii
1945-56 shows that when 1 pound of lint and 1,
pounds of seed are worth more than 20 poun
of grain sorghum, it is more profitable to i ,9
gate cotton; when 1 pound of lint and 1.6 poun
of seed are worth less than 20 pounds of gra'
sorghum, it is more profitable to irrigate so
ghum. Y

If the added net returns from 50 pounds t
cotton lint and 80 pounds of cottonseed exc,
the added net returns from 945 pounds of grai
sorghum, the low water-use system 1 in whic_
cotton receives 2 postplanting irrigations an‘
grain sorghum none, will provide a greater add
net return than system 2. If, on the other han,
945 pounds of grain sorghum provide a great
added net return, system 2, in which cotton {
ceives one, and grain sorghum, two postplan‘
ings irrigations, will be more profitable. I

   
  
   
   
 
 
 
   
   
   
   
  
  
   
   
  
   
   
   
   
    
   
  
    
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
 
 

ii 6. ADDED NET RETURNS PER ACRE-INCH OF
» R USED AFTER AUGUST 1, ALTERNATIVE MANAGE-
' MENT SYSTEMS‘ 2

Added
Water Added ' Added Aigfd reftfgns
used costs returns returns per
acre-inch
Acre' ————-—Dollars—————
inches
6.00 7.17 18.48 11.31 1.88
10.50 3.98 20.88 16.90 1.61
16.50 11.05 35.87 24.82 1.50
15.75 5.90 28.99 23.09 1.47

- on 1955-56 costs and 1946-56 average prices.

I se oi the different cotton acreage in system 5. the re-
r irom the use oi water aiter August 1 are not compara-
"with those oi the other iour systems.

IIn situations Where system 1 is more profit-
‘ than system 2, system 3 would be still more
itable, but would involve a heavier use 0f
r. System 3 differs from system 1 only in
A beginning at the conclusion of the cotton-
ating season, 10.5 acre-inches of Water in
applications are made on seven-eighths acre
‘hort-season sorghum hybrids. In system 3,
jexpenditure of 16.5 acre-inches of Water af-
‘ugust 1 produces 50 pounds of cotton lint,
lunds of cottonseed and 790 pounds of grain
um.

fWhen system 2 is more profitable than sys-
;1, there also is an alternative, system 4, re-
ng a heavier Water use. In system 4, like
y wer-water-using counterpart system 2, cot-
is not irrigated during August. A post-
jfng application of 5.25 acre-inches of wa-
I; applied on seven-eighths acre of full-sea-
Zsorghum hybrids during the first 2 weeks
ugust, after which 10.5 acre-inches of wa-
d‘: two irrigations are made on seven-eighths
30f short-season sorghum hybrids. The 15.75
inches of water applied after August 1 pro-
j1,315 pounds of sorghum grain (790 pounds

l‘ 7. CROPLAND ORGANIZATION AND PRODUCTION
 PICAL 320-ACRE TENANT-OPERATED IRRIGATED
a AND DRYLAND FARMS

Irrigated iarm‘ Dryland iarm

Production Production

Acres Ten- Acres Ten-
Total ant's Total ant's

share share

— — Pounds — — -- Pounds — —
112 49.280 36,960 112 21.280 15.960
‘tum 196 590§950 394,164 196 176.400 117,659

‘é

ius 12 12
 s20 s20

 and production based on use oi water manage-
ystem 2 ior 112 management units oi 2.75 acres each.
 le 4 ior cotton and grain sorghum yields per man-
(Ant unit.

as in system 3 plus 7/8 X [3300-2700l) (Table
1).

The comparisons of alternative systems 1,
2, 3 and 4 pertain to differences in crop produc-
tion and in Water use during August, the prin-
cipal period of Wateruse conflict.

Production and gross values per manage-
ment unit in the five management systems are
shown in Table 4. Gross values are based on

TABLE 8. ESTIMATED RECEIPTS, EXPENSES AND RESI-
DUAL RETURNS TO WATER, 320-ACRE IRRIGATED FARM
OPERATED UNDER WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 2

Type oi operator

Item let: LancL Owner
oper- lord ope!‘
ator (“or
————-Dollars—-———
Gross receipts. crop sales‘
Cotton, including seed 13.664 4.555 18.219
Sorghum grain 8.711 4.349 13.060
Total receipts 22.375 8,904 31,279
Expenses exclusive oi
water costs
Specified operating expenses ~
Labor’ 1,786 1,786
Power and machinery (ex-
cluding pumping costs) 3.297 3.297
Materials (seed. in-
secticides, etc.) 1,131 1.131
Harvest and
associated costs 4.957 342 5.299
Miscellaneousa 558 558
Total 11.729 342 12.071
Specified iarm overhead
expenses
Taxes‘ 258 258
Maintenance, depreciation
and insurance on iarm
improvementss 1.500 1.500
Supervisory“ 445
Capital charge
on land? 1,920 1.920
Total 11.729 4,465 15.749
Alternative management
incomes 3.824 3.824
Total expenses
excluding water 15,553 4.465 19.573
Residual returns to water”
Per iarm 6.822 4.439 11.706
Per acre irrigated 22.15 14.41 38.00
Per acre-ioot
oi water used 13.35 22.90

‘At 1946-56 average prices received ior cotton, cottonseed
and grain sorghum (Appendix Table 1).

2All labor, including operator, unpaid iamily and hired labor
‘at $1.00 per hour.

‘Five percent oi specified operating expenses to cover trans-
portation oi supplies and ‘general supervision.

*Based on average total ad valorum taxes per acre in Lub-
bock and Hale counties.

57.5 percent on $20,000 worth oi iarm improvements. excluding
irrigation iacilities.

65.0 percent oi gross receipts to cover expenses associated
with general management.

'Five percent interest charge on land with an undeveloped
(preirrigation development) value oi $120 per acre.
“Management income oi a 320-acre similarly organized dry-
land iarm at the same cost-price levels.

”The maximum economically ieasible or breakover point ior
water expenditures.

11

~ ‘Based on use oi 112 management units of 2.75 acres each, with yields shown for management system 2 in Table 4.

TABLE 9. TENANT'S3BREAKOVER POINT FOR WATER EXPENDITURES PER ACRE AT SPECIFIED COTTON LINT 3
GRAIN SORGHUM PRICES, 320-ACRE IRRIGATED FARM OPERATED UNDER WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 2‘ ;

Seasonal I

ggiéaieer Seasonal average price per hundredweight oi grain sorghum

pound of $3.25 $3.00 $2.75 $2.50 $2.25 $2.00 $1.75 $1.50 $1.25 $1.00

lint cotton3

Cents — — —- — — — — — — — — — — — — Dollars — — — — — — — — - --  -- - - - - 

34 32.83 30.49 28.14 25.80 23.47 21.12 18.78 16.44 ~~-14:,10 11.76 "‘
33 32.14 29.80 27.46 25.12 22.78 20.44 18.10 15.76 13.42 11.08
32 31.46 29.12 26.78 24.44 22.10 19.76 17.42 15.08 12.74 10.40
31 30.78 28.44 26.10 23.76 21.42 19.08 16.74 14.40 12.06 9.72
30 30.10 27.76 25.42 23.08 20.74 18.40 16.06 13.72 11.38 9.04
29 29.42 27.08 24.74 22.40 20.06 17.72 15.38 13.04 10.70 8.36
28 28.74 26.40 24.06 21.72 19.38 17.04 14.70 12.36 10.02 7.68
27 28.05 25.71 23.37 21.03 18.69 16.35 14.01 11.67 9.33 6.99
26 27.37 25.03 22.69 20.35 18.01 15.67 13.33 10.99 8.65 6.31
25 26.69 24.35 22.01 19.67 17.33 14.99 12.65 10.31 7.97 5.63
24 26.01 23.67 21.33 18.99 16.65 14.31 11.97 9.63 7.29 4.95

“Includes value of cottonseed at $60 per ton at all price levels.

the 1946-56 average price received for cotton
lint, ,cottonseed and grain sorghum. Since sys-
tems 1 to 4 are identical up to August 1, differ-
ences for these systems in the gross value per

lowest water use of systems 1 to 4, provides 
lowest return per acre but the highest ret
per acre-inch of water. a

Since management systems 1 to 4 differ 

   

used in the various management systems.

  
  
   
  
  
   
    
   
    
   
   

management unit shown in the last column of
the table reflect the returns from alternative
Water uses after August 1.

in the place of water use after August 1, the p
turn per acre-inch of water applied before "
gust 1 will be the same in all of these man
ment systems. The net returns to managem
and crop overhead per acre-inch of water 
plied after August 1 are shown in Table 6. _
returns for management system 5 are not 
cluded in Table 6 because the cotton-grain w
ghum planting ratio differs from that of n
other systems.

Systems 1 and 2 provide the highest net A
turn per acre-inch of water applied after A3
gust 1 and are the principal alternatives. 3

Systems 3 and 4, the heavier water-using ii
ternatives to systems 1 and 2, respectively, j
virtually eliminated as a continued practice. f
tal Water use per acre under systems 3 and §
is 2O acre-inches per acre, approximately 3 ac '

Specified crop production expenses shown
in Table 4 are based on the production require-
ments and costs shown in Appendix Tables 2
and 3. Differences in specified production costs
per management unit reflect (1) differences in
the cost of labor required to spread Water, which
is affected by the length of the irrigation sea-
son, (2) differences in harvesting and associated
costs which are associated with differences in
yield and (3) differences in direct water costs,
which are proportional to the amount of water

Table 5 shows for all five water-manage-
ment systems, net returns per acre and per acre-
inch of Water applied. System 1, which has the

TABLE 10. TENANT'S BREAKOVER POINT FOR WATER EXPENDITURES PER ACRE AT SPECIFIED COTTON LINT ' 3
GRAIN SORGHUM PRICES, 320-ACRE IRRIGATED FARM OPERATED UNDER WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM l‘

Seasonal
("P111929 Seasonal average price per hundredweight of grain sorghum 
pnce o .
lint cotton $3.253 $3.003 $2.753 $2.503 $2.253 $2.003 $1.75 $1.50 $1.25 $1.00 $0.7 ‘
per pound’ . @
Cents — — — — — — Dollars — — — — — —
34 20.48 18.69 16.92 15.16 13. 
33 19.65 17.87 16.11 14.34 12. ~
32 3 17.05 15.29 13.52 117,
31 3 16.24 14.47 12.70 l0 1 g
30 3 15.42 13.65 11.88 10 c '
29 3 3 14.60 12.83 11.07 9 y;
28 3 13.78 12.02 10.25 8 ;
27 3 3 11.20 9.43 7 F “
26 3 3 10.38 8.61 6. '5‘
25 3 3 9.56 7.79 P, .
24 3 3 8.74 6.98 5. g

‘Based on use of 112 management units oi 2.75 acres each with yields shown for management system 1 in Table 4.
3Inc1udes the value of seed with seed priced at $60 per ton, all price levels.
3At these price levels management system 2 provides a higher breakover point than management system 1.

12

  
    
   
  
  
   
  
   
   
  
 
   
   
   
  
   
  
 
 
 
   
  
   
   
 
 
   

b per acre greater than the 1950-54 average
 of water use? Figure 1 shows that the
f- resources of the area will not support in-
nitely an increase in the rate of water use.
_~ the additional 10.5 acre-inches of water per
agement unit required for system 3 over sys-
3 1 provide a net added return of only $1.29
3 acre-inch. Similarly, the additional 5.25
, inches of water required for system 4 over
k m 2 provide a net added return of only $1.17
'3 acre-inch. Thus, the additional water re-
, ed with systems 3 and 4 provides a net add-
return per acre-inch that is about one-third
i‘ than the added returns from systems 1 and
heir respective alternatives, and only about
third of the possible net return from water
lied before planting (Table 2).

._ Systems 1 and 2 apparently afford the most
'rable alternatives under conditions of de-
f sing water supplies and cotton acreage con-
‘ Lifting of cotton acreage controls could
r the situation. Without controls, manage-
rt system 5, which includes 2 acres of cotton
_ management unit, affords a better short-run
y, native than system 3 or system 4. Total
f- use with system 5 is similar to that of
 ms 3 and 4, but the net return per acre-inch
‘ater and per management unit is the great-
fof the five alternative management systems
idered (Tables 3 and 5).

j These comparisons of returns to the five
agement systems are based on the 1946-56
age price received for cotton lint, cottonseed
_ grain sorghum (Appendix Table 1). A
,5» in cotton or grain sorghum prices would
rially affect prospective returns and would
_1» t the selection of the alternative system to
ollowed after August 1.

 on information compiled from various sources by
i L. Broadhurst, chief hydrologist, High Plains Un-
l: ound Water Conservation District No. 1, Lubbock,
 5,

I - nal

Appendix Table 1 shows that at the yield
levels assumed, system 2, which concentrates on
grain sorghum production after August 1, would
have provided a higher net added return in 9 of
the 11 years between 1946-56. Therefore, sys-
tem 2 is analyzed further.

Considerations leading to the most advan-
tageous irrigation management systems are the
same irrespective of the head of water (gallons
per minute) available. Because the postplant-
ing irrigation program involves uniform quan-
tities of water applied within definite time per-
iods, differences in irrigation head affect the
total acreage that can be irrigated seasonally but
does not affect the most economic use of water.
Therefore, although there are economies of scale
with the larger irrigation heads, the most eco-
nomic use of water with a head of 540 gallons
per minute is, although on a reduced scale, also
the most economic use with a head of 135 gal-
lons per minute. See TAES Bulletin 851 (13).

MAXIMUM FEASIBLE
EXPENDITURES FOR WATER

Determination of the most economic water--

management system was based on a partial
analysis involving only the irrigation season af-
ter August 1. Use of the most economic water
management system contributes to the success
of an irrigation enterprise by providing a greater
return or a smaller loss than alternative systems
that might be used under the same circum-
stances. To determine the profitability of an
irrigation enterprise, the entire irrigation-man-
agement program, including costs of installation
and operation, and its returns, must be consid-
ered in light of its contribution to the farm as
a unit.

The second objective of this study was to
determine the maximum feasible expenditure for
water. Since costs are peculiar to a particular

11. LANDOWNER'S BREAKOVER POINT FOR WATER EXPENDITURES PER ACRE AT SPECIFIED COTTON LINT
1 GRAIN SORGHUM PRICES. 320-ACRE IRRIGATED FARM OPERATED UNDER WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 2‘

3'99 Seasonal average price per hundredweight of grain sorghum

   

per

    

J d of 2 $3.25 $3.00 $2.75 $2.50 $2.25 $2.00 $1.75 $1.50 $1.25 $1.00 $0.75
‘ tton
A. nts — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Dollars — — — — — — — — — — — — — ~ — — — —
16.77 15.70 14.62 13.55 12.48 11.41 10.34 9.27 8.20 7.13 6.073
 4 16.60 15.53 14.46 13.39 12.32 11.25 10.18 9.11 8.04 6.97 5.903
 16.43 15.36 14.29 13.22 12.15 11.08 10.01 8.94 7.87 6.80 5.733
2 16.26 15.19 14.12 13.05 11.98 10.91 9.84 8.77 . 7.70 6.63 5.563
1 16.09 15.02 13.95 12.88 11.81 10.74 9.67 8.60 7.53 6.46 5.393
0 15.92 14.85 13.78 12.71 11.64 10.57 9.50 8.43 7.36 6.29 5.223
-' 15.75 -, . g 14.68 13.61 12.54 11.47 10.40 9.33 8.26 7.19 6.12 5.05
f i 15.58 .._“ '3 14.51 13.44 12.37 11.30 10.23 9.16 8.09 7.02 5.95 4.88
 15.41 3' 14.34 13.27 12.20 11.13 10.06 8.99 7.92 6.85 5.78 4.71
15.24 14.17 13.10 12.03 10.96 9.89 8.82 7.75 6.68 5.61 4.54
15.07 14.00 12.93 11.86 10.79 9.72 8.65 7.58 6.51 5.44 4.37
14.90 13.83 12.76 11.69 10.62 9.55 8.48 7.41 6.34 5.27 4.20

 

  
  
 
 

, - on use oi 112 management units of 2.75 acres each, with yields shown for management system 2 in Table 4.
des value oi cottonseed at $60 per ton at all price levels.
ese price levels. water management system 1 would provide a slightly higher breakover point.

set of conditions, and returns are related closely
to prices received, determination of the maxi-
mum feasible expenditure for water involves a
comparison of costs for a particular set of con-
ditions with a number of cotton and grain sor-
ghum price combinations.

The analysis is based on estimated returns
on a 320-acre, fully irrigated farm using man-
agement system 2. Assumptions regarding labor,
power, machinery and material requirements
and costs are based on the data presented in Ap-
pendix Tables 2 and 3, adjusted to reflect the
labor requirements and harvesting costs associ-
ated with yield levels of management system 2.
Cotton and grain sorghum prices are the aver-
age prices received in 1946-56 (Appendix Table
1).

Water costs fall in two broad groups—oper-
ating and overhead. Operating costs include
expenditures for fuel or energy, oil, repairs and
maintenance. Overhead costs include interest on
investment, taxes, depreciation and risk or in-
surance. This division of water costs parallels
with some exceptions the usual distribution of
water costs between tenant and landlord under
typical third and fourth crop-share leases (12).
Under the typical crop-share lease agreement,
the tenant furnishes and maintains the pump
power unit and all fuel and oil costs. The land-
lord provides and maintains the well and pump.

The maximum feasible expenditure for wa-
ter is the maximum amount that a farm operator
could pay for water without reducing his net in-
come below what he would receive from dryland
farming. This is the breakover point above
which irrigation is no longer a profitable under-
taking for the tenant operator or the landowner.

With an established irrigated farm, the over-

-- head portion of water costs is considered only

when it becomes necessary to replace equipment.
The investment in irrigation facilities and equip-
ment has been made, and the landowner’s only
alternative to continued irrigation is to pull his
pump for salvage and return to dryland farming.
Used equipment brings only a fraction of its new
cost and a return to dryland farming results in
a severe reduction in land values. Therefore,
in most situations where the cost-price squeeze
has reduced the landowner’s return, it probably
will be advantageous to continue irrigation until
replacement of equipment becomes necessary.

Tenant’s Breakover Point for Water
Expenditures

Land use, cropland organization and pro-
duction on typical 320-acre irrigated and dry-
land farms are shown in Table 7. The cropland
used is equivalent to 112 management units of
2.75 acres each (Tables 3, 4 and 5).

The tenant’s breakover point for water ex-
penditure under a typical third and fourth crop-
share lease at average 1946-56 prices is shown

14

    
  
   
  
   
  
  
    
   
 
 
   
  
   
  
 
    
  
    
  
  
  
  
 
   
   
   
   
  

in Table 8. It is determined by deducting-
tenant’s share of all costs, except water .
management, from his share of gross recei
This residual, less an allowance for alterna
management return (see discussion to follo
defrays the tenant’s water costs. The chief w}
and return items summarized in Table 8 W
derived as follows: A

Gross receipts. Gross°'=r'eceipts are retu
from the volume of production shown in -,
7 at 1946-56 average prices given in Appen,
Table 1 prorated according to the division’
crop receipts in a typical third and fourth c g
share lease (12). '

Specified operating expenses. Labor, p0
and machinery and material costs are based i,
production requirements and costs for a typi
320-acre farm shown in Appendix Tables 2 I
3, adjusted for operations under water mana
ment system 2. -

Harvest and associated costs. Harvest l,
associated costs are costs to the first mar
place. They are based on the 1955 costs a
practices reported in TAES Bulletin 851 (1
Briefly, cotton harvesting costs are based on A
percent handsnapping and 20 percent machi
stripping of irrigated cotton at a handsnappi
rate of $1.75 and a machine-stripping rate of t
cents per 100 pounds of seed cotton. Ginni
costs are computed at 50 cents per 100 pou i
of seed cotton for a season average of 1,9,‘
pounds of handsnapped and 2,400 pounds of L
chine-stripped seed cotton per standard bale v
lint. A further charge of $3.50 per bale for n,
and ties, plus 50 cents per bale for hauling a ._
is included. Sorghum-harvesting costs are bas
on a custom rate of $3 per acre, plus a grai
hauling charge of 6 cents per 100 pounds. it

Miscellaneous expenditures. Miscellaneo
expenditures are an allowance of 5 percent e.
the specified operating expenses to cover tran
portation of supplies, labor recruitment and oth
necessary farm service activities.

Alternative management income. Altern
tive management income is the income that mig i_
be obtained on a dryland farm of similar .{
and organization at the same price levels. T Y;
concept is employed in lieu of a family living a,
lowance, which would otherwise be required. Th
alternative management income reflects the fa
operator’s income from his chief alternative
short of leaving the farm, and as such it repr
sents the amount that would be available f0’
family expenses and risk-bearing. I

Residual returns to water. Residual retur 
to water is the amount remaining after produfi
tion costs, including farm overhead and manag
ment returns, have been subtracted. The ten;
ant’s portion of this is the amount that he ca
spend for water without depleting his operatin
capital or reducing his income below the incom‘
he would receive from dryland farming, his chie

  
   
   
   
  
  
   
   
   
 
  
   
 
  
   
  
  
   
   
  
  
   
   
   
  
  
   
    
   
   
   
  
   
   
   
   
  

f- ative. Under the conditions assumed in
e 8, the tenant’s breakover point for water
nditures is $6,822 for the farm, and about
gand $13, respectively, per acre irrigated and
racre-foot of gross water use. He will profit
e extent that his share of total farm water
I; can be held below $6,822.

; In Table 8, the breakover points for water
nditure are based 0n the 1946-56 average
 received for cotton lint, cottonseed and sor-
1 grain. The tenant’s breakover point for
or expenditures per acre at other prices for
_n lint and grain sorghum are shown in Table
The entries in Table 9 have been derived
 gh the same process as the breakover point
cre presented in Table 8. The price received
ttonseed is held constant at $60 per ton at
lotton lint price levels. Specified farm op-
ng expenses and farm overhead expenses,
, the exception of the alternative manage-
. income, are held constant at the 1955-56
s used in Table 8. As the alternative man-
ent income is based on the operator’s alter-
e income on a similar dryland farm, it has
1 adjusted at each respective price level to
it the effects of similar price changes on
‘gement income on a dryland farm.

ygVariations in cotton or grain sorghum prices
v an important bearing on the prospective
lreturn to the alternative management sys-
. Tables 9 and 10 show the tenant’s break-
“ point when the typical farm described in
2- 7 is operated under management systems
d 1, respectively. In general, with grain
_= um prices at or below $1.50 per hundred-
ht, management system 1 provides a higher
j over point for water expenditures than
A system 2 (Table 10).

With management system 2, where irriga-
‘ water is used on grain sorghum after Au-
p 1, a change in the price of grain sorghum
u» cents per 100 pounds reduces the break-
v point on the farm by $2.35 per acre. With
ggement system 1, where irrigation water is
‘p on cotton after August 1, a similar change
i, price of grain sorghum reduces the break-
 point by $1.77 per acre (Table 10).

6A 1-cent per pound change in the price of
n lint changes the breakover point 69 and
nts per acre for management systems 2 and
jpectively (Tables 9 and 10).

jLandl0rd’s Breakover Point for Water
i Expenditures

The landowner’s receipts and expenditures
Pthe residual favailable to defray his portion
rrigation costs under a typical third and
A h crop-share lease are shown also in Table
2).

"The landowner’s receipts reflect the sale of
‘part of the crop—the difference between
l production” and “tenant’s share” in Table

7—at 1946-56 average prices (Appendix Table
1).

The landowner’s “specified operation expen-
ses” consist of the ginning cost on his one-fourth
share of the cotton crop, based on the previously
discussed ginning costs.

Specified farm overhead expenses of the
landowner are explained in the footnotes to Table
8. ’

At 1946-56 average prices received for cot-
ton lint, cottonseed and sorghum grain, the land-
owner’s residual return amounts to $14.41 per
acre. This is the amount per acre that would be
available to cover depreciation and maintenance
costs on the irrigation facilities, exclusive of the
pump power unit, and to provide a capital re-
turn on the landowner’s total investment in irri-
gation developments (Table 8, footnote 8). If
the landowner’s total annual irrigation and add-
ed capital costs exceed $14.41 per acre, the land-
owner’s breakover point for water expenditures,
his net income is reduced below that estimated
for a comparable dryland farming operation.

The landowner’s breakover point for water

expenditures at the prices of cotton and sorghum

grain used in Tables 9 and 1O are shown in Table
11. The entries in Table 11 are computed as in
Table 8.

Owner-operator’s Breakover Point for Water
Expenditures

Except for the small charge of $445 for
supervision expenses for the landlord (Table 8),
the estimated receipts and expenses for an own-
er-operator represent the sum of those for the
tenant and landlord. Because of this, at all price
levels, the owner-operator’s breakover point for
Water expenditures is slightly greater than the
total of the tenant’s and the landowner’s break-
over points. At 1946-56 average prices received
for cotton lint, cottonseed and grain sorghum,
the owner-operator’s breakover point for water
expenditures is $38 per acre. At the same price
levels, the combined tenant’s and landowner’s
breakover points total $36.56 per acre ($22.15
for the tenant + $14.41 for the landowner).

At 1946-56 average prices, the owner-oper-
ator could spend $38 per acre per year without
reducing his net income below comparable dry-
farm levels. This is the amount that would be
available to defray the combined fuel, oil and en-
gine costs and the interest, maintenance and de-
preciation costs on irrigation facilities and add-
ed capital costs of the landowner.

The owner-operator’s breakover point at
other price levels is not computed; however, it
always will be slightly greater than the total of
the breakover points for the tenant and land-
owner shown in Tables 9 and 11, respectively.

The calculations that lead to a determina-
tion of the breakover point per acre for water

15

expenditures do n'ot include an allowance to
cover the risks involved in the production of an
irrigated crop. Mortgage indebtedness, interest
rates and appraisal of risk are peculiar to indi-
vidual situations; consequently, no attempt is
made to determine their effects.

OTHER SITUATIONS

The study reported here is based on a par-
ticular set of conditions including farm size, crop
acreages, production requirements, production
costs and crop yields. The results, however, can
be adjusted to other situations. The production
requirement and cost data in Appendix Tables 2
and 3 and the entries in Table 8 can be adjusted
to individual situations. Adjustments to fit sit-
uations involving different farm organizations,

I crop yields, price levels, interest rates, or capital

investments will give different residual returns
or breakover prices for water. Where an indi-
vidual cost or return item differs from that used,
the entries in Tables 9 and 11 can be adjusted by
the amount of this difference to reflect the
breakover price for water.

LITERATURE CITED

1. Hughes, Wm. F. and Motheral, Joe R., “Irri-
gated Agriculture in Texas,” TAES Miscel-
laneous Publication 59, September 1950.

2. Sherrill, O. W., “High Plains Irrigation Sur-
vey,” Texas Agricultural Extension Service.

3. Bonnen, C. A., et al, “Use of Irrigation Wa-
ter on the High Plains,” TAES Bulletin 756,
December 1952.

4. Map entitled “Approximate Decline of the
Water Table 1938-56,” High Plains Under-
ground Water Conservation District No. 1,
Lubbock, Texas. I

I 5. Hughes, Wm. F., and Magee, A. C., “Changes

in Investment and Irrigation Water Costs,
Texas High Plains, 1950-54,” TAES Bulletin
828, March 1956.

6. Magee, A. C., et al., “Cost of Water for Irri-
gation on the High Plains,” TAES Bulletin
745, February 1952.

7. Summary of Water Level Measurements
Conducted by the U. S. Geological Survey
and State'Board of Water Engineers, Aus-
tin, Texas.

16

8. Thaxton, E. L., J r., “When to Irrigate G,
‘ Sorghum,” The Cross Section, a mon
publication of the High Plains Undergri
Water Conservation District No. 1, ’
bock, Texas.

9. Thaxton, E. L., Jr. and Swanson, N.
“Guides in Cotton Irrigation on the i,
Plains,” TAES Bulletin 838, Septe,
1956.  f. I

10. Swanson, Norris P., and Thaxton, E. L.,‘
“Requirements for Grain Sorghum Ir
tion on the High Plains,” TAES Bull
846, January 1957. i

11. Jones, Don S., et al, “Cotton Production”
the Texas High Plains,” TAES Bulletin :~
April 1956. l

12. Adkins, William G., and Cecil A. Par
“Farm Leases on Irrigated Farms on
High Plains of Texas,” TAES Progress
port 1434, February 1952. 

13. Hughes, Wm. F., and A. C. Magee, “W
and Associated Costs in the Production;
Cotton and Grain Sorghum, Texas H
Plains, 1955,” TAES Bulletin 851, Ma
1957. i

APPENDIX TABLES

APPENDIX TABLE 1. PRICES RECEIVED FOR CO I
AND GRAIN SORGHUM, HIGH PLAINS. 1946-56‘ '

  
  
   
    
   

Cotton Grain sorg a
Year Lint 
  

pound wet

Cents — — — Dollars — —:,
194s 29.55 97.50 2.
1947 91.90 94.00 9. 1
1949 29.20 70.50 2.1 .
1949 25.10 41.25 1.7
1950 99.90 90.00 1. 
1951 99.95 74.50 2. .
1952 90.40 72.50 2 W
1959 29.20 52.50 2. F
1954 91.05 59.50 2.1 
1955 29.70 45.50 1.5 .
195s 29.70 59.00 2.,
Average 91.40 99.70 2.2 f,

"Agricultural Prices." U. S. Department of Agriculture.

  
  
  
 
    
    
   
  
   
  
  
 
  
 
 
   
   
    
    
   
   
  
   
 
   

=1 IX TABLE 2. PREHARVEST REQUIREMENTS FOR PRODUCING IRRIGATED AND DRYLAND COTTON AND GRAIN
 I SORGHUM, BY MAIOR SOIL TYPES, HIGH PLAINS. 1955‘

Ma- _ Insect-

; chine Man-labor requirements per acre Tractor Seed icide Ilillffirzéle
type and type require- Tractor _ fuel per appli- this
_,-~ mg operation ments Opel“ Hoe Irriga- Total per2 acrea cations per

< per ("or tron acre per season

acre acre

 — — — — — — -- — Hours — — — — — — — Gallons Pounds — Number —
gy soils
‘gated cotton 4.16 4.16 5.20 2.08 11.44 16.6 48.0‘ 3.55 3.5
gland cotton 1.55 1.55 3.20 4.75 6.2 30.0‘ 6

gated grain sorghum 2.90 2.90 1.86 4.76 11.6 8.5 3.0
i‘ land 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 48.0‘ 3.55 3.0
gated grain sorghum 3.02 3.02 2.00 1.73 6.75 _ 12.1 8.5 3.3

ted from TAES Bulletin 851 (13).

e~

’,-~ rates per planting: irrigated cotton, 32 pounds; dryland cotton, 20 pounds; irrigated grain sorghum, 7 pounds: dryland
- sorghum. 4 pounds.

“ht ol seed before delinting.

_ erage rate of 2 early applications and 11/2 late-season applications.

A’ nds on rainfall. With rainfall. 1 or 2 early applications; without rainfall. no application.

 DIX TABLE 3. PREHARVEST COSTS PER ACRE FOR LABOR, POWER AND MATERIALS OTHER THAN WATER USED
1955 PRICES‘ 2

Labor costs

- PW“ Ins cti 'r m1
type and size and ma- Machine In-igm Seed .2 ' OT d
- e of farm chinery open Hoeing flan T°lal cost“ c1 s, specltlf
1 °°5l ation labor labor cos cos s
“~ — — — — — — — — — — — -— — Dollars — — — — — — — — — — — -- --
_' soils: 320-acre farm
Q land cotton 4.88 1.47 2.08 3.55 1.95 10.38
)ated cotton 17.82 3.95 3.38 1.98 9.31 3.12 4.75 35.00
land grain sorghum 3.22 1.47 1.47 .42 5.11
_ated grain sorghum 6.64 2.75 1.77 4.52 .60 11.76
~ e farm
ated cotton 21.62 3.95 3.38 1.98 9.31 3.12 4.75 38.80
vated grain sorghum 8.34 2.75 1.77 4.52 .60 13.46
g soils: 320-acre farm
ated cotton 17.08 4.51 3.51 1.54 9.56 3.12 4.75 34.51
ated grain sorghum 7.39 2.87 1.30 1.64 5.81 .60 13.80
' e larm
,-ated cotton 19.78 4.51 3.51 1.54 9.56 3.12 4.75 37.21
ated grain sorghum 9.19 2.87 1.30 1.64 5.81 .60 15.60

 ed from Table 3, TAES Bulletin 851 (13).
f on requirements presented in Appendix Table 2.
l, ted and treated cottonseed at 6.5 cents per pound; grain sorghum seed at 7 cents per pound.

fol early application included in machine and machine operator costs. See footnote 5. Appendix Table 2.
 cost of machinery. fuel, oil. grease repair, labor, seed and insecticides.

17

 ODUCE COTTON AND GRAIN SORGHUM, HIGH PLAINS, AT SPECIFIED TYPES OF FARMS BY MAIOR SOIL TYPES._..

i‘ 'al cost of 50 cents per acre for early application, $2.50 per acre custom rate for late application. Machine labor and fuel-

[Blank Page in Original Bulletin]

[Blank Page in Original Bulletin]

Location oi field research units oi the Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station and cooperating
agencies

QRGANIZATION

OPERATION

Research results are carried to Texas farmers,
ranchmen and homemakers by county agents

and specialists of the Texas Agricultural Ex-

tension Service

joclay ,6 wedearck ~95 YOITLOPPOLU {'5 POgP256

 
  
        
     

State-wide Research i

 l‘,

‘k

The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station 
is the public agricultural research agency
oi the State oi Texas, and is one oi ten 1
parts oi the Texas A6=M College System »

IN THE MAIN STATION, with headquarters at College Station, are 16 sulf
matter departments, 2 service departments, 3 regulatory services and
administrative staff. Located out in the major agricultural areas of Texas‘
21 substations and 9 field laboratories. In addition, there are 14 cooper
stations owned by other agencies. Cooperating agencies include the T_
Forest Service, Game and Fish Commission of Texas, Texas Prison 
U. S. Department of Agriculture, University of Texas, Texas Technolo l
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, grou
in 25 programs, which include all phases of agriculture in Texas. Am
these are: l
Conservation and improvement oi soil
Conservation and use of water
Grasses and legumes
Grain crops
"Cotton and other fiber crops
Vegetable crops
Citrus and other subtropical fruits
Fruits and nuts
Oil seed crops
Ornamental plants
Brush and weeds

Insects

Beef cattle

Dairy cattle

Sheep and goats

Swine

Chickens and turkeys
Animal diseases and parasites
Fish and game

Farm and ranch engineering
Farm and ranch business
Marketing agricultural products
Rural home economics
Rural agricultural economics
Plant diseases

Two additional programs are maintenance and upkeep, and central servi‘

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH seeks the WHATS. the
WHYS. the WHENS, the WHERES and the HOWS oi
hundreds oi problems which confront operators oi iarms
and ranches, and the many industries depending on
or serving agriculture. Workers oi the Main Station
and the iield units oi the Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station seek diligently to iind solutions to these
problems.