8-997 I APRIL I 963 ON-FARME STORAGE AND DISPOSAL 0F SORGHUM GRAIN THE AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION IQ. E. PATTERSON. DIRECTOR, COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS IN COOPERATION WITH THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE summary The sorghum grain industry in the l950’s showed tremendous increases in production, utilization, carry- over stocks and storage space. Utilization increases resulted from an increased awareness and acceptance by feeders and millers of its relative feeding value, an increasing number of livestock on feed, increases in concentrates fed per animal unit, a favorable price relative to other feed grains and gains in exports to foreign markets. Off-farm storage space in Texas, in short supply in the late l940’s and early l950’s, mushroomed in the last decade. On-farm storage space increased but not as extensively as off-farm space. Data indicate about 100-million-bushels of farm storage capacity in the State, about half of which is used for storing sorghum grain. Stocks of sorghum grain in on-fann storage January l increased from 9 million bushels in 1953 to 53 million in 1960. A higher proportion, 32 percent in 1959, of the sorghum grain crop in North Central Texas is stored on the farm. Comparable proportions for the High Plains and Coastal Bend were 19 and 8 percent, re- spectively. Smaller acreages on individual farms and a greater proportionate use of farm-stored grain in feeding operations explain the higher proportion in North Central Texas. Feeding operations were a greater influence in the High Plains than in the Coastal Bend where more of the farm storage was for the cash market (or CCC) operations. About two-thirds of the 1959 sorghum grain crop in the Coastal Bend, one-half in North Central Texas and two-fifths in the High Plains were sold at harvest. This pattern would be expected as a result of declin- ing prices, as the harvest season progresses from the Coastal Bend in June into North Central Texas in August and ends in the High Plains in October and contents Summary ...................................................... --l ............... .. 2 Acknowledgments .......................................................... _- 2 Introduction ................................................................... -. 3 Purpose and Procedure .......................................... .- 3 Production Increases .............................................. .- 3 Changes in Utilization .......................................... _. 4 On-farm and Off-farm Storage and Stocks ........ .. 4 On-farm Storage Facilities ........................................... -- 5 Disposition of Sorghum Grain at Harvest .............. .. 6 Quality Maintenance Practices ................................... _. 7 Drying and Aeration .............................................. __ 7 Fumigation ............................................................... -- 8 Adequacy of Practices to Maintain Quality ...... _. 8 Future Importance of On-farm Storage ................... .. 8 November. Most of the sales at harvest are to y mercial storage operators, although about one-t r of the crop in North Central Texas sold to f mills, heavily concentrated in that area. < The flat type of storage structure is most pr. lent on farms in all three areas. Too, the por a auger or elevator is used by most producers A moving grain into and out of storage. How 31 percent used hand shovels to remove sorghum ; from storage in North Central Texas. Heavier of sorghum grain for feeding in that area necessi v ' removal in small amounts. i’ Almost three-fourths of the producers with f a storage in the Coastal Bend had drying equip and about the same proportion had aeration. F‘ than l0 percent of the producers in the other w. had drying or aeration equipment. Producers in Coastal Bend harvest at considerably higher mois content and have higher relative humidity th f the other areas, yet they had less loss of gra' storage and fewer problems associated with mo’ than the other two areas. Their use of arti ‘V drying and aeration facilities helps to control fa adversely affecting quality in storage. The fact v a large part of the grain stored on the farm " Coastal Bend is later moved into market cha may explain, in part, the better care generally farm-stored grain in that area. ' Almost all the growers in the Coastal Bend‘ fumigated their farm-stored sorghum grain, _ only half in North Central Texas and one-th' the High Plains did so. About half of the prod with aeration equipment in the Coastal Bend j it for fumigating. Most of the others in that _ and more than four-fifths of those in the other p used handsprays. acknowledgments This study was conducted under contract l Texas Agricultural Experiment Station for the ‘V keting Economics Division, Economic Research A ice, U. S. Department of Agriculture. t The authors wish to express appreciati Albert Graf of the Marketing Economics Di USDA, for his assistance in initial planning study and for review and suggestions that ma A contributed to the finished manuscript, and to i. Hobson of the Texas Crop and Livestock R Service for his assistance in constructing the qu naire and conducting the mailed survey. t Purpose and Procedure ‘s STUDY WAS MADE TO DETERMINE (1) how producers ispose of their sorghum grain at harvest, (2) the J and amount of o-n-farm storage facilities and ithe storage and quality maintenance procedures ticed in storing sorghum grain o-n the farm. It ' ides informatio-n about what producers do, rather prescribes what they sho-uld do under specified iency conditions. 1C Three sorghum grain producing areas were Q ted for study, Figure 1. Areas selected produce A t three-fourths of the sorghum grain grown in as and have diverse physical and economic co-ndi- 3 affecting the production, storage and marketing orghum grains. Information about disposal and storage practices p heir own and in other areas should enable pro- Iers to evaluate better their own disposal alterna- a». and their farm storage practices. It should Vvide a basis for better decisions about investments arm storage. Commercial grain storage warehouse- i, and those considering new commercial storage lities in sorghum grain producing areas, will find information useful in evaluating the probable and for storage services, and in improving their ices and enlarging their trade. Public officials draw on the results to evaluate trends in storing ‘ marketing sorghum grains in the State. ; Area I, the High Plains, produces about three- _s of the State’s sorghum grain. It has low precipi- '0n and humidity, relatively low winter and high ymer temperatures, a level topography, and is well ted to the use o-f large machinery. Large acreages sorghum are grown under both dryland and irri- ed conditions. I ; Sorghum has been a principal cro-p, along with ‘ton, for many years in the southern part of area I, t has expanded north into predominantly wheat ntry in recent years. Sorghum acreage mainly . eased on diverted wheat acreage in the north and erted cotton acreage in the south. It competes wheat for storage in the north. Harvest usually ins in September and continues through No- ll bEI‘. “ Area II, No-rth Central Texas, produces slightly a than one-tenth of the State’s sorghum grain, rang- ; from 24 toil-ZS million bushels in recent years. It .- higher annual precipitation than the other two as, but lower humidity than the Coastal Bend, ause of its interior position. Low winter and high mer temperatures prevail. Sorghum production spectively, former assistant professor and associate professor, partment of Agricultural Economics and Sociology. ON-FARM swarms AND DISPOSAL 0r SORGHUM GRAIN Charles W. Brown and Clarence A. Moore* competes with corn, oats, barley and wheat more on a cost-returns, rather than acreage control, basis, but has increased on land diverted from cotton. It com- petes with the other grains for both farm storage space and commercial sto-rage space. There has been con- siderable interest in expanding beef production and feeding operations and some effort in that direction. Farming inthe area has been in a depressed condi- tion since World War II, and farmers are searching for alternative enterprises to improve their economic conditions. Sorghum grain harvest usually begins in the latter part of July and reaches a peak in August. Area III, the Coastal Bend, has medium, rainfall, relatively mild winter and summer temperatures and high humidity. Sorghum mainly is grown on land not under irrigation, and production has expanded on acreage diverted from cotton. The area grows slightly more than one-tenth of the State’s sorghum grain. Harvest usually begins in early June. The main source of information for this study was mail questionnaires sent to sorghum producers. The first questionnaire asked for general data on production, storage and disposal of sorghum grain. A second questionnaire, sent to those that had on-farm storage space, requested information about their stor- age facilities and practices. A total o-f 1,545 general and 474 storage questionnaires was returned; these were the basis of the analysis. Production Increases The nation’s average crop of sorghum grain was almost ten times larger during 1958-62 than in 1935-39. Texas’ annual production varied from 4O to 75 per- Area I High Plains Area II North Central Texas rrrr n GRAIN SORGHUM ACREAGE I954 STATE TOTAL - 5,6l7,407 I DOT ' 5000 ACRES Area III Coastal Bend and Valley Figure 1. Sorghum grain producing areas studied. cent of national production, averaging slightly more than half in the late l930’s and slightly less than half in recent years. Both higher yields and larger acreages contributed to production expansion. The average yield per acre in the late 1930’s for both the United States and Texas was less than 15 bushels. It increased to about 30 bushels in the late 1950’s and exceeded 40 bushels per acre in 1961. The rather co-nsistent increases in yield per acre in Texas since the l930’s were due to the adoption of better yielding varieties, improved cultural practices, greater use of fertilizer, increased use of irrigation and, more recently, the adoption of higher yielding hybrids. Acreage diverted from cotton and wheat, under acreage co-ntrol, paved the way for enlarging sorghum acreage, but the increasing economic advantage of the crop gave impetus to the shift. Increased mecha- nization in production and harvest and higher yields per acre lowered the production cost per bushel. In spite o-f the cost-price squeeze that prevailed for agri- culture generally during the l950’s, it became more profitable to produce sorghum than other crops not under acreage control. Changes in Utilization Utilization of the nation’s sorghum grain in 1960 was almost five times as high as in 1953. Although exports increased substantially, the greatest increase was in amounts fed to livestock. Several factors account for the increase-d use of sorghums in livestock feeding. Animal units on feed increased substantially and concentrates fed per grain- consuming animal unit increased by almost 20 percent. Sorghum grain prices became more favorable relative to other feed grain prices and resulted in its substi- tution for other grains in the feed ration. Also, there was increased feeding of livestock in sorghum produc- ing areas. There was increased consumption of sorghum grain by all classes of livestock except horses and mules, Table 1. In general, the increase in consump- tion by classes of livestock was considerably greater TABLE 1. CONSUMPTION OF SORGHUM GIIAINS BY PRINCIPAL LIVESTOCK ON FARMS, UNITED STATES, 1955-601 than the increase in their numbers, indicating gains were mainly in the amount fed per unit and a the expense of other feed grains. Further increa, in its use by livestock appears to be the best potentiv for expanding sorghum utilization. Exports also ma be increased under government programs and '1 grain trade association promotions underiPublic La 480. Industrial uses have not been large ‘in the past but there is some potential for expanding them. Although demand and utilization increased su stantially, production and supply of sorghums ou stripped domestic and export requirements at existi , price levels. This led to increasing canyover stoc. estimated at slightly more than 700 million bush by 1960. i On-farm and Off-farm Storage and Stocks Both off-fann and on-farm storage stocks = sorghum grain in Texas increased in the 1950s, I off-farm stocks increased more rapidly. January? off-farm stocks increased from 19 million bushels 3 1953 to 394 million in 1960, while on-farm stocks '3 creased from 9 to 53 million bushels. I The total on-farm storage space in Texas is known exactly. However, more than 99 milli bushels of all grain were stored on farms during I last quarter of 1958 and 92 million bushels in l9 This indicates on-farm storage space slightly in ex of 100 million bushels. Sorghum grain occupied u. half the space in 1960. a Farmers built farm grain storage facilities “T several reasons. Some use them in feeding operati others store grain under the CCC price support w" gram or to sell later in the season, a few hold ; as a financial reserve or to level out incomes for v purposes, and some feel that farm storage is ch than commercial storage. In some areas facilities a built because off-farm storage was not available W needed. I Disadvantages of farm storage vary dependin; the particular conditions of individual operati There is risk of loss caused by fire, wind, theft, p age and rodent and insect damage when the fa stores in his own facilities. Proper management ;. f Horses and Year 1);“: cauetflfe Sheep Poultry Hogs mules Other Unaccounted2 To’ _ — — — — — — — — — — — — —1,000Tons——-—-—-—-—————-—————_ 1955 694 803 81 2,323 409 33 120 4 ' 1956 711 875 75 2,612 325 30 122 70 4, 1957 990 1,400 84 3,703 520 40 210 576 7, ’ 1958 961 1,562 99 3,379 955 37 214 325 7, 1959 991 2,945 97 4,042 1,736 20 203 1,154 11, 1960 1,022 3,083 97 4,031 1,211 20 200 2,636 12 lPreliminary. zUnaccounted for figures reflect differences between actual amount of feed that disappeared and the number of livestock reported. Source: Unpublished data, ERS, U. S. Department of Agriculture. 4 2. GENERAL QUESTIONNAIRE: NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS AND RESPONDENTS WITH FARM STORAGE TABLE 3. STORAGE QUESTIONNAIRE: NUMBER SENT, NUMBER OF RESPONSES AND STORAGE CAPACITY Respondents with kespondenIs farm storage —- -— Number — —- Percent 753 338 45 554 305 55 238 36 15 1,545 679 44 (vent spoilage, rodent and insect losses. Insurance lessen some of the other risks. Many farmers are unwilling to devote the neces- time to maintain and handle grain stored on the This, along with increasing availability of off- ‘: facilities, probably explains why farm storage anded less than commercial storage. Farmers erally are willing to let those who specialize in age, handling and drying care for their grain. ON-HIIIM STORAGE FACILITIES ' Farm storage is predominantly of the flat type the areas studied. Most farm storage in the High ins was constructed before 1956, while in the other I areas, most was constructed during 1956-60. Most i e farm storages reported in North Central Texas small units used to store feed and seed for farm A large number o-f the storages in the High ins are also in small units and similarly used, ough quite a few of the more recent constructions e built to» hold commercial grain either under the price support program or for later market sale. i. farm storages in the Coastal Bend are larger ts used for commercial grain. -There were several reasons farmers in all three ». installed farm storage to handle sorghum grain ifically. In order of importance they were (1) to in feeding operations, (2) less expensive than mercial storage, (3) lack of nearby commercial ities and (4) to put grain into farm storage under Slightly less than half of the sorghum grain pro- hers in the High Plains, more than half in North tral Texas and only 15 percent in the Coastal d had farm storage in 1960, Table 2. About one- u of those with farm storage in the High Plains, -tenths in the North Central area and only one- in the Coastal Bend used their storage for other ns, as well as sorghum. This is in line with the competitive position of r grains with sorghum in the three areas. In the Plains, wheat is the dominant competitive com- cial grain crop. While oats and barley are grown uch less quantity, they probably compete with hum grain to a much greater extent for farm ge than for commercial storage space. In North tral Texas corn, oats, barley and wheat are grown, used to a greater extent in feeding farm livestock, Question- Respondents’ Respondents’ . Respond- Area naire ems total storage average sent capacity capacity -— Number -— — — Bushels — — High Plains 338 306 3,321,062 10,853 North Central 305 149 1,096,228 7,357 Coastal Bend 36 19 345,660 18,193 All areas 679 474 4,762,950 10,048 and probably all compete for farm storage space. No other grain is grown on a significant commercial scale in the Coastal Bend. However, a few farmers in that area store small amounts of seed and other grains to use in feeding livestock. The average size of farm storage units in all areas was only l0 thousand bushels, although the average in the Coastal Bend was considerably higher than this and in North Central Texas, lower. About two-thirds of the farm storage space in all areas was built before 1956, Table 4. However, this mainly was influenced by constructions in the High Plains where the greatest amount of farm storage is locate-d. Four-fifths was constructed in that area be- fore 1956. Almost two-thirds of the fann storage in North Central Texas and more than three-fourths in the Coastal Bend were built during 1956-60. The flat building is the dominant type of struc- ture for farm storage, Table 5. More than four-fifths of the total storage space was of the flat type in both 1955 and 1960 in the High Plains and North Central Texas. Farm storage space in the Coastal Bend in 1955 was about evenly divided between the flat and round metal bin types. However, the area increased its farm storage space during 1956-60 more propor- tionately than the other two areas; over three-fourths was the flat type by 1960. The larger average size of units in the Coastal Bend, greater recent expansion, greater use of farm storage for commercial grain and use of aeration suggests more of the flat units in this area are- probably modern steel structures than in the other areas. ' Future increases in fann storage probably will be limited. Although feed lot operations are increas- ing, especially in the High Plains, they usually are specialized operations separate from sorghum grain TABLE 4. ON-FARM STORAGE BY PERIODS WHEN CONSTRUCTEDI Total capacity Area Prior to 1956 1956-‘60 inclusive Bushels Percent Bushels Percent High Plains 2,687,812 81 633,250 19 North Central 389,063 35 707,165 65 Coastal Bend 77,035 22 268,625 78 All three areas 3,153,910 66 1,609,040 34 ‘Quantities of storage space in the table are only for those producers answering the storage questionnaire. 5 TABLE s. ON-FARM STORAGE CAPACITY BY TYPE or CONSTRUC- TION, 195s AND 1960‘ Total on-farm capacity Location Type 1955 1960 Bushels Percent Bushels Percent High Plains Flat storage 2,383,064 89 2,830,798 85 Round metal bin 227,713 8 307,872 9 Silo 77,035 3 182,392 6 North Central Flat storage 326,213 84 916,443 84 Round metal bin 62,850 16 179,785 16 Silo Coastal Bend Flat storage 39,635 51 266,483 77 Round metal bin 37,400 49 63,106 18 Silo 1 6,071 5 All three areas Flat storage 2,748,912 87 4,013,724 84 Round metal bin 327,963 10 550,763 12 Silo 77,035 3 198,463 4 ‘Quantities of storage space in the table are only for those producers answering the storage questionnaire. production. T00, the large increase in commercial storage facilities, coupled with government efforts to decrease production and carryover stocks of grain sug- gests that competition among elevators to provide commercial storage space to farmers will be keen. About four-fifths of the producers in all areas use a portable auger or elevator to put grain into farm storage. Hand shovels were used by almost one-fifth of the producers in the High Plains and North Central Texas. Similar equipment was used for removing the grain from storage, except that a higher proportion (31 percent) in North Central Texas used hand shovels. This reflects the removal in small lots to use for feeding. DISPOSITION 0F SORGHIIM GRAIN AT HARVEST The producer has several alternatives in dispos- ing of his sorghum grain. At harvest he may either sell or store the grain. If he stores it, he may put it in farm storage or in a commercial elevator. Grain stored at harvest may or may not be placed under CCC loan. Sales of grain may be made to elevator buyers, feed mills, truckers or through various other outlets. Data were obtainedifrom 1,545 producers who grew more than 251 thousand acres of sorghum grain TABLE 6. SORGHUM GRAIN PRODUCTION, ON-FARM STORAGE AND ACREAGE BY AREAS, 1959 in 1959, Table 6. They produced almost ll million bushels or about 5 percent of the total crop in the A areas studied. Acreage by respondents was only a slightly smaller proportion of total acreage than their ‘ production was of total production. This indicates that respondents probably were representative of all producers for purposes of the study. Factorfs affecting their disposal decisions change from yeanto year, but; data probably reflect the usual differences between areas. Slightly less than half of the sorghum grain pro-t. duction was sold outright at harvest, Table 7. Two- thirds was sold by producers in the Coastal Bend, one-half in North Central Texas and two-fifths in the High Plains. Harvest begins in the Coastal Bend in June and July, moves through North Central Texas- and ends in the High Plains in October and Novem- ber. The market for new grain is relatively strongi in early harvest and tapers off as the season advances. The average midmonth grain sorghum price for Tex consistently declined each month in 1959 from $2.0 per hundredweight in May to $1.50 and $1.49, respect tively, in September and October. Thus, it becom more feasible to store as the season advances and pricf decline. This accounts for the higher proportion sol in the Coastal Bend and lower proportion sold in t High Plains. a Most sales at harvest were to elevators in all ar but ll percent of the crop in North Central was sold to feed mills. Feed milling is concentrat more heavily in that area than in the other two. A There has been some concern about an incre in farm sales to truckers who bypass local elevat ‘ moving the grain directly to terminals or mills. ' sults of the study do not support this. Sales to truck,“ were rather insignificant in 1959. Producers in N0 1 Central Texas sold the largest proportion (4 perce to this outlet. I Producers in North Central Texas stored alm’ one-third of their sorghum grain crop on the f l, and only one-fifth of the amount stored was put un the CCC loan. Small acreages are grown in the . and more sorghum grain is used on the farm as elf for livestock. Similarly, slightly less than one-fifth the sorghum grain was stored on farms in the H' Plains, much of it for livestock feed. Feeding oa-T tions are expanding in the area, but mainly on? commercial and specialized basis separate from ; 1 All areas g hem Units High Plains North Central Coastal Bend Total respondents Number 753 554 238 1,545 ‘ Sorghum grain production Total‘ 1,000 bushels 163,231 23,197 24,877 211,305 By respondents 1,000 bushels 7,430 1,023 2,353 10,806 ‘ By respondents Percent 4.6 4.4 9.5 5.1 _ Sorghum grain acreage Totall Acres 3,735,000 720,000 655,000 5,110,000 By respondents Acres 167,187 29,448 54,459 251,094 " By respondents Percent 4.5 4.1 8.3 4.9 l} ‘Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, AMS, U. S. Department of Agriculture, February 10, 1960, release. 6 *TABLE 7. DISPOSAL OF SORGHUM GRAIN AT HARVEST BY PRODUCER RESPONDENTS, 1959 osmon High North Coastal Three area Plains Central Bend total Quantities — — —- —- 1,000 Bushels -—- —- — —- uction by 1 spondents 7,430 1,023 2,353 10,806 " d on farm 1,383 323 194 1,900 cl |n com- rclal elevator 3,104 y 193 555 3,852 - outright ‘- harvest 2,943 507 1,604 5,054 Proportions ————-—Percent———--—-— g d on farm ¢ producer 18.6 31.6 8.2 17.6 nder CCC loan 7.7 6.2 3.5 6.7 ot under CCC loan 10.9 25.4 4 8 10.9 I d in commercial elevator y producer 41.8 18.9 23.6 35.6 ‘nder CCC loan 33.4 15.2 20.2 28.8 ot under CCC loan 8.4 3.7 3.4 6.8 l by producers 39.6 49.5 68.2 46.8 o elevators 35.3 32.3 63.2 41.1 o feed mills 2.0 11.1 1.8 2.8 o truckers 0.6 4.1 1.3 1.1 o others 1.7 2.0 1.8 1.8 I disposition 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 uction, so probably most sorghum grain stored farms for feed is used where livestock are a supple- ntary enterprise. The low proportion stored on "- farm in the Coastal Bend is, in part, a consequence high humidity in that area which intensifies the and increases the cost of farm storage. Most sorghum grain stored in commercial eleva- was put under CCC loan. The proportion stored commercial facilities was considerably higher in - High Plains than in the other areas. Large acre- s and production and a later harvest season are v tributing factors. However, the amounts stored in ators in all areas are something of a residual. The Count stored on-farm generally is fixed by the pro- er’s feed needs or the available storage space. Sales harvest occur as long as the market price is more orable than the net CCC loan rate. When the ce drops below that level, the remaining sorghum in is placed in commercial storage, usually under C loan. OIIAIITY MAINTENANCE PRACTICES Quality maintenance and proper handling of i hum grain stored on farms are highly important. ins stored forfilateir disposal in commercial chan- may have savings more than offset by deteriora- in quality. If stored to feed farm livestock, 1 iderable grain may be lost by improper handling. Most storage problems are caused by high mois- e and excessive trash which lead to damage by cts, mold and heat. Moisture problems may result placing high moisture content grain in storage or by leakage of moisture into the storage bin. Farm- ers have tended to harvest grain at higher moisture content, because of increased mechanization, develop- ment of artificial drying and aeration facilities and the ever-present concern about p-otential weather loss, insect damage and shattering. Quality maintenance practices differ considerably among producers and between are-as. The producer storing on the farm should make sure his practices are adequate for the job in his area} The condition of the grain going into storage is as important as the handling of the stored grain. Drying and Aeration Twelve percent is considered a safe moisture level for sorghum grain in farm storage for l year without aeration, or longer with aeration. Grain sorghum with l4 percent moisture has been stored safely for 9 months when aerated? Moisture content above l4 percent is considered unsafe for storage. Only one-sixth of the sorghum growers in the Coastal Bend harvested at moisture levels less than l5 percent, compared with about four-fifths in the other two areas, Table 8. While moisture content of harvested grain varies during the season, and estimates may not be exact, artificial drying is necessary for grain harvested at the high levels indicated in the Coastal Bend. Drying and aeration are widespread in the Coastal Bend area largely because humidity and moisture problems are severe. Also, more of the farm-stored sorghums are for commercial rather than feeding pur- poses, either stored under the CCC price: support program with its strict moisture requirements or for later sale. Slightly less than three-fourths of the producers with on-farm storage have their own drying equipment and another 12 percent custom dry at ele- vators. Three-fourths of the producers are equipped to aerate more than one-half and, most of them, 100 percent of their capacity. ‘Quality maintenance recommendations are discussed in the following publication: Allen, W. S. and Sorenson, ]. W., ]r., Drying and Storing Sorghum Grain, Texas Agricultural Exten- sion Service, Bulletin 888, February, 1958. zSorenson, j. W., ]r., Kline, G. L., Redlinger, L. M., Davenport, M. G. and Aldred, W. H., Research on Farm Drying and Storage of Sorghum Grain, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 885, December, 1957. TABLE 8. PROPORTION OF GROWERS THAT HARVESTED SORGHUM GRAIN WITHIN SPECIFIED MOISTURE CONTENT CATEGORIES BY AREAS, 1959 Proportion of sorghum producers Moisture _ contem Hugh North Coastal Plains Central Bend — —- -— Percent — - — 12 percent or less 10 26 0 More than 12 but less than 15 percent 67 58 17 15 percent and above 23 16 83 Producers with on-farm storage in the North Central and High Plains rely 0n field drying to bring the moisture content within storable limits. Less than l0 percent had drying facilities and a similarly low percentage had aeration equipment. In lieu of aera- tion, a few producers turn their sorghums during storage. Despite more favorable climatic conditions, moisture problems do occur, as shown by the fact that the main reason for loss of quality during storage was high moisture. The necessity for drying and aeration facilities in the Coastal Bend explains, in part at least, the larger- sized individual storage units. Higher investments in drying and aeration equipment may require larger units and volumes to operate on a paying basis. Fumigation One-third of the producers with storage in the High Plains, about half in North Central Texas and nine-tenths in the Coastal Bend fumigated their farm- stored sorghum grain in 1959. Lower temperatures in the High Plains, when grain is moved into storage, probably aids in restricting insect infestation. Most producers in all three areas who fumigated did so only once. However, one-fifth of those who fumigated in the High Plains and one-third in North Central Texas did so twice, and a few in North Central Texas and in the Coastal Bend fumigated from three to six times. Most growers in the High Plains and North Central Texas used a handspray to fumigate. Slightly less than half in the Coastal Bend used their aeration systems and one-third used handsprays. Insects are a major problem of farm storage, and farmers were not successful entirely in control prac- tices. “Insects constituted 18 percent of the reasons for loss in the High Plains, 4O percent in the North Central area and 60 percent in the Coastal Bend. Adequacy of Practices to Maintain Quality The adequacy of quality control practices for farm-stored sorghum grain by growers cannot be evaluated precisely from data obtained in the study. Risk of some loss may be justified in areas with low risk if the cost of its avoidance should exceed the realized savings over a period of time. _However, oftentimes the loss incurred is much higher than growers realize. This is true especially of both quan- tity and quality losses of fann-stored grain for use in feeding. However, some quality loss may not be as important in farm feeding as for market grains. Most quality control measures involve relatively small cost, are not difficult to undertake, and probably would be justified for most farm-storage situations. The lowest grade of sorghums was either number 1 or number 2 for 90 percent of the farm-stored grain. Number 3 was the lowest grade recorded by operators in the Coastal Bend, whereas a small proportion showed sample grades in the other two areas. 8 Moisture, either its content in the grain or as leakage in the storage facility, made up half the rea sons for storage loss in the High Plains; and insects, birds and rodents and high grain temperature wer other dominant reasons given. Insect infestation the main reason given in North Central Texas. Bir: and rodents, moisture, trash in grain and high grai temperature were next most dominant in that order Insects were also the main reason for loss in stor grain in the Coastal Bend, with a scattering of oth reasons, none of which was dominant. It would appe from the response, that growers in the Coastal Ben are less p-lagued by loss in farm-stored grain than th other two areas. This may be expected in view 4 the greater prevalence of driers and aeration equi ment and use of fumigation practices among produce in that area. FUTURE IMPURTANCE 0F ON-FARM STORAGE Over-all farm storage is expected to decrease importance in the total storage picture. In the 195A commercial storage capacities scarcely could keep pa, with increased. production. Some farmers were for by necessity to provide storage for their own grain: Today, conditions are reversed. Production t leveled off so that there is unfilled capacity in u.‘ mercial houses. Elevator operators are compet" with each other to store the farmers’ production. T, condition makes it increasingly difficult for the ~i ghum producer to profit from building additio storage space. Two other trends imply that farm storage If become less important. sOne is the trend to . specialized livestock feeding of purchased rather t x home grown feeds. The other is the trend towi use of a balanced, ground-and-mixed feed ra rather than whole grains. Both trends, if continul mean less farm storage space will be required for ; I used in livestock feeding. ' However, some new fann storages will contii to be built, because there are those who believe p can store grain profitably for CCC. Others feel V can store their grain for sale later in the marke year at less cost than the cost of elevator storage. either case, individual units can be expected t0 larger and equipped with more adequate han facilities. a I Now that the urgency to build storage spa 1 longer exists, construction costs and prospective p will be more dominant factors in deciding wh to build storage space. ‘ In the High Plains and North. Central farmers already having storage space and those, ning to build should give more consideration t installation of aeration equipment and use mo l, cient practices to maintain the high quality I grain put into storage. 1