iTexas AMQ University i o An Economic Comparison of .n--- . - ¢ - -. . - - - - .- . - - - - Q .- Covent ional a nd Na rrow- Row - - - - ¢ o u. - ¢ - - - ¢ .- o ~ Q ¢ . . ~- . - - Q | ¢ ¢ .- o u u - - » Q ¢ - Q ¢ - - - - Q . ~- Q n a n - - Q - » - - | - - - - | - |- u Q u - u Q - - - Q . - - | - - | - - =- | a - - ¢ - - Q ¢ ¢ ¢ - - - - ¢ - . Q Q - .- Q ¢ ¢ - | - Q - Q - - Q - - ¢ - Q . Q . - .- Q o - - - Q Q - Q - - Q | ¢ ¢ - - | ¢ . - .- u n u - - - Q Q Q - - - ¢ ¢ ¢ - Q - u - - - u- Cotton Production-Southern .;._.;.;._-_.;.;.;.;.;.- -._-_.-.§'.'.;.;.;.;.;q.;.; High Plains 0f Texas The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, J. E. Miller, Director‘ The Texas A&M University System, College Station, Texas i i June 19' Contents Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methods and Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Method of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Yield Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Differences in lnputs Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fertilizer and Irrigation lnputs . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Seeding rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weed control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Machinery inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Comparison of Costs and Returns . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . .. Comparison of Lint Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary Increasing interest in adopting narrow-row sys- tems for cotton production in the Southern High Plains ofTexas prompted an economic comparison of these new systems with conventional production sys- tems for cotton. Previous experimental research in- dicated that narrow-row production methods have the potential for increasing returns and (or) reducing costs relative to conventional production methods. A survey of known narrow-row growers con- ducted from 1971 to 1973 provided basic data for the study. Statistical tests of the yield series indicated that for irrigated production, the double-row method and the 32-inch single-row method pro- duced significantly higher yields per crop acre than the conventional 40-inch single-row method. With- out irrigation, only the 32-inch, 2x1 skip row method produced a significantly higher yield per 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..4 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..4 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..6 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..6 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..6 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..6 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..7 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..7 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..7 .’ . . . . . . . . . . . ..11 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..‘l1 crop acre than the conventional 40-incj row method on medium-textured soil.*, returns analysis of the different systems”! potential for improving economic retu l; acre by shifting to the higher yielding l, methods for different soil types. l“ An analysis of equipment investme‘ converting from conventional production, yielding narrow-row methods indicat though additional investment was requi may be repaid from additional earnings l“ tively short time period. Comparisons of lint quality betwel methods revealed that narrow-row meth. produce slightly shorter staple length a micronaire in general than conventio but there is no major difference in the ‘i’ produced. Comparisons of weed contrq cated no major difference in herbicide tion practices, or hoeing costs betwe tional and narrow-row methods of pr i cept in the case of broadcast systems. i j Narrow-row, high-population cotton produc- A: systems offer potential for reducing production i and (or) increasing growers’ returns as com- yd with conventional methods of 38- to 40-inch le-row spacing. Recent commercial production ecialized equipment for harvesting narrow-row in has enabled growers to consider a relatively d range of possible planting patterns. Because a is of paramount importance as a cash CIOp in A exas Southern High Plains economy, these new uction practices have attracted considerable est in the region. TSince 1970, growers have been experimenting ' narrow-row production systems for cotton in (Southern High Plains of Texas. Such research " izations as the Texas Agricultural Experiment bn and the USDA, ARS, High Plains Research idation as well as seed companies have con- gled experimental studies of this new method the 1950's. However, no economic studies ‘i been made of the experiences of Southern l‘ Plains growers who have used these new sys- ‘ under actual field conditions. The aim of this ‘é was to assemble data from known narrow-row i.» growers in the region and to compare the “mics of the new systems with conventional uction methods to determine if their results j narrow-row cotton are consistent with findings ‘ earch studies. pecific objectives of the study were as follows: {t compare input-output relationships of J rrow-row cotton production systems with nventional production systems under differ- t resource situations; h put costs associated with different planting sys- 5F .. compare investment requirements, costs, a d returns of different narrow-row production 5' stems with conventional systems; y. tively, assistant professor and research assistant, De- ‘A nt of Agricultural Economics, Texas Tech University and .-A&M University Cooperative Research Unit, Lubbock, 0 compare weed control and other specific, N ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL ‘> AND NARROW-ROW COTTON PRODUCTION - SOUTHERN HIGH PLAINS OF TEXAS Kenneth B. Young and James R. Adams* (4) To compare differences in lint quality associated with different cotton production systems. Previous research on narrow-row systems done in the High Plains has focused primarily on such technical aspects as harvesting equipment, selection of appropriate plant varieties for narrow-row spac- ing, water and fertilizer requirements, and weed control. In general, field plot experiments have shown that narrow-row spacing increases yield over con- ventional row spacing. Wanjura and Hudspeth (1963) reported an average increase of 180 pounds per acre with broadcast spacing relative to 40-inch spacing on irrigated land. Ray, Hudspeth, and Holekamp (1959) reported a 10- to 15-percent in- crease in yields with row spacing less than 40 inches. Similar results were obtained in other experimental studies (Bradshears, Kirk, and Hudspeth, 1968; Kirk, Bradshaw, and Hudspeth, 1969; and Ray and Hudspeth, 1966). Some general guidelines on the expected costs and returns of narrow-row produc- tion were also developed in response to producer requests by researchers at the Texas Agricultural Ex- periment Station. However, no specific economic studies of these new systems for different resource situations had been conducted for the Southern High Plains before the present study. Economic studies of narrow-row cotton produc- tion have recently been completed in other cotton- producing regions. A cost and return analysis of narrow-row systems compared with conventional production was completed for Arizona (Willet, Taylor, and Buxton, 1973). In addition, a study by Larson et. al. (1975) indicated that narrow-row cotton production in the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas reduces insecticide and energy use as well as increases farm income in that region when compared with conventional cotton production. Implications of small-plot research studies con- ducted in the Texas High Plains and of economic studies in other cotton-producing regions are that there are potential economic benefits in converting from conventional to narrow-row production sys- tems for cotton in the High Plains. Methods and Materials Study Area The study area encompassed most of the Southern High Plains Region where cotton is pro- duced (Figure 1). The study area has fine-, medium-, and coarse-textured soils under both irrigated and non-irrigated conditions. Weather factors affecting cotton production in this region are relatively low rainfall, from 18 to 24 inches per year according to location, and a short growing season compared with other cotton- producing regions. The average growing season ranges from 204 to 221 days. Growers in the area also have difficulty establishing a satisfactory stand of cotton because of blowing sand during the planting season. They may have to replant several times. Thus, high winds also hinder cotton production in the re- gion. Method of Analysis A survey of known narrow-row cotton growers in the Southern High Plains was conducted in 1971, 1972, and 1973 to obtain basic data for the compari- son of narrow-row systems with conventional 40- inch single-row production. The surveycovered 39 of approximately 100 producers who had ex- perimented with narrow-row production in the re- gion. Data obtained from the survey included in- formation on lint yield, associated lint quality, pro- duction practices, and investment requirements for different narrow-row systems. To compare conven- tional or 40-inch single-row production with narrow-row systems, the survey also included grow- ers who used conventional production methods on fields adjacent to narrow-row systems. The signifi- cance of yield differences between conventional and narrow-row production systems was evaluated by analysis of variance tests. Crop enterprise budgets were developed to compare the costs and returns of all selected sys- tems. Yield data reported in the survey were aver- aged for the 1971 to 1973 period. lnput costs and product prices were incorporated for the situation in 1974. An assumed farm size of 750 acres, the average size of farm operations in the survey, was used to determine equipment utilization in the budgets. Ownership and operating costs per hour for machinery and equipment were computed using regular accounting procedures as employed in pub- lished budgets by the Texas Agricultural Extension Service. Enterprise budgets were stratified by plant- ing pattern and soil type and for irrigation versus dryland. Costs for alteration of existing equipment used for conventional production and for additional new equipment needed for narrow-row production were evaluated to determine the investment outlay for 4 from conventional systems. However, thlf _ trol methods for cotton production. converting to narrow-row production. T even number of acres for this equipment v5; was estimated assuming no cost for land agement. 5' Average micronaire and staple len_ produced with narrow-row systems were with that of conventional production on?‘ fields to evaluate economic implications ; result from possible differences in quali the planting systems. Analysis of particuli quirements for narrow-row cotton prod cluded a comparison of weed control co the different planting systems and an ev' _ narrow-row system response to fertilizer inputs on the basis of experimental data.‘ j Results and Discussion ‘l Yield Comparisons Average 1971 to 1973 lint yields with plant spacing arrangements in the produ” I are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Yield data irrigated, narrow-row systems were not fine-textured soils to compare with con production. Y As indicated in Table 1, average lint c‘, per crop acre with irrigation was highl narrow-row systems when compared double-row system on fine- and mediu f" soils with irrigation showed statistically higher yields as compared with conventio single-row systems. Test results also sh; 32-inch single-row systems produced si higher yields per acre on irrigated med coarse-textured soils than 40-inch singl terns. Tests of other irrigated narrow-ro’ compared with conventional systems ind significant yield differences. As shown in Table 1, there was considerable variationf among fields on different sites in each both selected test methods and conventi Yield response data for dryland cottof tion given in Table 2 showed that most n systems also had higher average yields tha’ _ tional systems during 1971 to 1973. Analys ance indicated that the 32-inch 2x1 skip r‘ had a significantly higher yield than the 40- skip row system on medium-textured coarse-textu red soils, the 34-inch 2><2 skip? tem had significantly lower yield than th 2><2 skip row system. Both of these res ever, were significant only at the 10-perc" ‘The experimental data were used to evaluate fertilizer? f. response rather than data in the producer survey as ers used the same application levels for narrow-row i l they used for conventional cotton production. A Medium-textured soils Roberts Hempnm Fine-textured soils I57‘ l! Oldham Potter Coarse-textured soils I Gfay f Wheeler P Carson A I . / I / / ' [l] ,' //////////§1>‘ » 2% ’ Deaf Smith Q:b//, $6,‘ /// // / ‘T IIIII [j/f 4//// 1/ ' Parmer ' Castro ', Swisherrl/ Ha“ Qééiw/ /}777/‘ . :'.'.':::.‘ .12"; /// ////A / QQQQOOOQQQQQO OlOO § “.00 DOPOIIOII w’. ‘__ Hockley 0 0 0 o 0 Q Q o 0 a Cochran J Hunk IHHHH‘ Voakum l i mill llllllll Gaines Figure 1. Southern High Plains of Texas, including the study area and sample counties. TABLE 1. IRRIGATED ‘COTTON YIELD COMPARISONS BY PRODUCTION METHODS AND SOIL TYPES, SOUTHERN HIGH PLAINS OF TEXAS, 1971-1973 AVERAGES Soil texture Spacing pattern Fine Medium Coarse (Average lint yield per crop acre in pounds) Double-row, 14-inch spacing (test) 5631 6001 n.a.2 Single-row, 40-inch bed (control) 441 508 n.a. Double-row, 12-inch spacing (test) 542 n.a. 648 Single-row, 40-inch bed (control) » 518 n.a. 592 Double-row, 11-inch spacing (test) 542 n.a. n.a. Single-row, 40-inch bed (control) 450 n.a. n.a. Double-row, 10-inch spacing (test) 613 575 733 Single-row, 40-inch bed (control) )83 513 653 Broadcast, 8-inch spacing (test) 479 868 496 Single-row, 40-inch bed (control) 450 723 451 l Three-row-drilled on 40-inch bed (test) n.a. 600 n.a. Single-row, 40-inch bed (control) n.a. 575 n.a. Single-row, 32-inch bed (test) n.a. 7421 7253 Single-row, 40-inch bed (control) l n.a. 676 646 Four-row, 16-inch spacing on 80-inch bed (test) n.a. n.a. 550 Single-row, 40-inch bed (control) n.a. n.a. 488 1Statistically significant at the 1-percent level for analysis of vari- ance test. 2Not available. 3Statistically significant at the 10-percent level for analysis of vari- ance test. Source: Data from 1971-1973 producer survey. See Appendix Table 1 for additional information. All other yield differences were not statistically sig- nificant for dryland production. Additional informa- tion on the test results for dryland production is given in Appendix Table 2. Differences in Inputs Used Fertilizer and Irrigation Inputs: No apparent differ- ences in irrigation water applications or fertilizer use among the different planting systems were reported in the survey. This may be attributed tothe relatively short time period that growers have been experi- menting with narrow-row systems. The growers evi- dently have not changed application levels for narrow-row from those used for conventional pro- duction methods. Therefore, data were not available from the survey to determine possible differences in response among the cotton planting systems to water and fertilizer use. A supplemental source of data to the grower survey on water and fertilizer response relationships with alternative cotton planting arrangements was available from field research plots in the South Plains area. Experimental yield data for 1971, 1972, and 1973 for three different cotton row spacing ar- rangements were obtained from the Texas Agricul- tural Experiment Station at Lubbock for Floyd, Lub- bock, and Dawson Counties. The experiments had 6 TABLE 2. DRYLAND COTTON YIELD COMPA, PRODUCTION METHODS AND so||_ TYPES, SOUT _ PLAINS OF TEXAS, 1971-1973 AVERAGES Soil to): Spacing pattern Medium (Average lint; crop acre in, Double-row, 14-inch spacing (test) V 214 J A Single-row (2 x 1), 40-inch bed (control) 225 Single-row (2 x 1), 32-inch bed (test) 5412 Single-row (2 x 1), 40-inch bed (control) 472 Broadcast, 8-inch spacing (test) 266 g Single-row (2 x 1), 40-inch bed (control) 225 ' g‘ Single-row (2 x 2), 34-inch bed (test) n.a. Single-row (2 x 2), 40-inch bed (control) n.a. 1 Not available. 2Statistica|ly significant at the 10-percent level for a ance test. g Source: Data from 1971-1973 producer survey. See Al" 2 for additional information. No dryland test trials A for fine-textured soils. k ‘q, " > if?‘ m- been conducted by Levon L. Ray, A. B. On"- Wilke, c. w. Wendt, and H. o. Sunder Lubbock Center. The three locations fol’ trials are representative of fine-, medlfl coarse-textured soils, respectively. The entailed nitrogen applications of 0, 40, ti. 320 pounds per acre in combination with-Si 12- acre inches of irrigation water applied? Statistical methods were applied to mental data to evaluate response relatioi fertilizer and water. Findings of they: analysis indicated that narrow-row cottof tion systems tend to have higher irrigatio! quirements than conventional productgi wider range of response to nitrogen the case of fine-textu red soil, the water a requirements for maximum yield were in“ a relatively small amount with narrow-r? compared with conventional 40-inch production (Table 3). The increases inf quirements for narrow-row production mined to be more substantial for me, coarse-textu red soil areas. Seeding rate: In general, producers us“ seeding rate with narrow-row producti- to obtain a higher plant population relat“. ventional production methods. Additio seed was considered in evaluating the turns of different production methods. Weed control: Mechanical weed cont formed more easily with conventional W’ spacing relative to closer spacing betwi There appeared to be no difficulty, how tivating with 32-inch row spacing. With a spacing, there may be some problem in between the middles of the rows without the cotton plants, and mechanical cult“ j ' 3. ESTIMATED NITROGEN AND WATER REQUIRE- _ FOR MAXIMUM LlNT YIELD, THREE COTTON PLANT- STEMS, FINE-, MEDIUM- AND COARSE-TEXTURED SOUTHERN HIGH PLAINS OF TEXAS, 1971-1973 , lrrigation Rainfall ;~= and Nitrogen (Acre- (Acre- Lint yield j Pattern (Lbs.) inch) inchlz lLbs.) tured: single-row 87.55 5.27 12.20 611.74 . double-row 123.37 5.91 12.20 658.49 broadcast 118.75 6.01 12.20 662.98 l textured: J- single-row 143.81 9.27 11.59 715.68 - double-row 186.39 14.07 11.59 731.75 broadcast 316.02 ' 16.36 1 1.59 743.78 xtured: '_ ~ single-row 170.73 8.62 12.27 648.46 “l double-row 179.93 9.44 12.27 653.82 1 broadcast 208.95 1 1.99 12.27 714.08 l, a were obtained from experimental field research plots in Lubbock, and Dawson Counties to supplement results of y of cotton growers conducted from 1971 to 1973. Ex- _~ ts were conducted by Levon L. Ray, A. B. Onken, O. C. ‘- C. W. Wendt, and H. D. Sunderman at the Lubbock Center. for May through August. Total rainfall in 1971, 1972, and v Floydada (fine-textured soils) 25.48 inches, in 1971, 20.51 iin 1972, 20.96 inches in 1973; Lubbock (medium-textured 1.76 inches in 1971, 24.87 inches in 1972, 15.16 inches in ’ amesa (coarse-textured soils) 19.08 inches in 1971, 24.82 "n1972, and 16.52 inches in 1973. used to a limited extent with broadcast sys- * Where mechanical cultivation is more dif- i there is greater reliance on hand hoeing to e weeds that are not controlled by herbicide ;tions. '_ cept for broadcast systems, no major differ- ' in mechanical cultivation operations were re- 0 in the survey for the different planting sys- With most systems, growers used a rod just before planting and cultivated twice f»; June and July. Some growers reported that _ould eliminate one summer cultivation with a -row system, but evidence in the survey was ufficient to determine that less cultivation is ~- I for narrow-row systems. With broadcast sys- 3 the only mechanical method of weed control jj- le was using a rotary hoe one time after plant- eed control costs other than mechanical culti- for narrow-row production systems were 7 red with that of conventional production sys- ;,(Table 4). Using double-row and 32-inch row f s entailed some minor increase in hand hoe- sts with comparable herbicide applications. j hoeing costs were reported to be appreciably _ for broadcast, three-row, and four-row sys- irelative to conventional systems. The different control costs were considered in evaluating 1w and returns of each system. Machinery Inputs: Investment costs to convert from conventional to most narrow-row production systems can include the purchase of a broadcast- type cotton harvester, additional planter boxes, cul- tivator sweeps, and a grain drill, depending on the particular plant spacing arrangement adopted. The conventional cotton stripper may be used on 32-inch or wider spacing arrangements, requiring less in- vestment than converting to other narrow-row sys- tems. The estimated number of acres required to re- cover investment costs of harvesting and other specialized equipment for alternative cotton pro- duction systems is shown in Tables 5 and 6. On fine- textured soils, adoption of the most profitable sys- tem of double-row production would allow the farmer to recover the cost of additional specialized equipment for conversion on 420 acres (Table 5). Costs of conversion for broadcast and double-row irrigated production in medium- and coarse- textured soil areas of Table 5 can be recovered with less than 750 acres. Costs of converting to 32-inch skip row production on medium-textured soils shown in Table 6 are recovered with 180 acres. In- vestment costs are recovered with 248 acres on coarse-textured soils using 32-inch skip row produc- tion. Comparison of Costs and Returns A summary of the costs and returns data is pre- sented in Table 7 for irrigated cotton systems and in Table 8 for dryland cotton systems.’ Comparisons of cost-return data for each narrow-row system with conventional production on adjacent fields show that the most profitable systems for irrigated pro- duction are estimated to be double-row for fine- textured soils, broadcast for medium-textured soils, and double-row for coarse-textured soils. The com- parison also showed that the most profitable sys- tems for dryland production, when expressed on a per crop acre basis, are conventional 40-inch single- row (2-in — 1-out) on medium-textured soils and conventional 40-inch (2-in — 2-out) on coarse- textured soils. Comparison of Lint Quality Average staple length, micronaire, and as- sociated lint values based on 1973 Upland Cotton Loan Rates were compared for different production methods in each soil area (Table 9). In general, in the narrow-row systems the staple was shorter than in conventional systems, but the micronaire was higher for narrow-row production. No measurable difference was apparent in the value of lint pro- duced with the different systems on the basis of these selected comparisons in the survey. “Completed enterprise budgets for each planting system for the three soil types are not included in this report. They are available in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Texas Tech Uni- versity. 7 TABLE 4. COMPARISONS OF HERBICIDE USE AND HAND HOEING COSTS BETWEEN NARROW-ROW AND CONVENTI I TON PRODUCTION SYSTEMS, SOUTHERN HIGH PLAINS OF TEXAS, AVERAGES FOR 1971 TO 1973 Comparisons Fine-textured soils Medium-textured soils Coarse-textured- Conventional .4 vs. Herbicide Herbicide Herbicide Narrow-row (pts.)1 Labor cost (pts.)1 Labor cost (pts.)1 14-inch, irrigated double-row 1.17 $ 2.83 1.00 $ 4.00 — 40-inch, irrigated single-row 1.17 3.17 1.00 5.00 — 12-inch, irrigated double-row 1.15 3.25 — — . 1.50 _I 40-inch, irrigated single-row 1.15 3.00 — - " 1.50 1 1-inch, irrigated double-row 1.50 4.50 — — — i) 40-inch, irrigated single-row 1.50 4.00 — a — I 10-inch, irrigated double-row 1.18 4.25 1.75 4.00 1.00 40-inch, irrigated single-row 1.18 3.75 1.75 2.75 1.12 8-inch, irrigated broadcast 1.50 10.00 — — — ‘I 40-inch, irrigated single-row 1.50 4.50 — — — 40-inch, irrigated three-row — — 1.25 6.00 — 40-inch, irrigated single-row -— — 1.25 3.00 — I 32-inch, irrigated single-row — — 1.50 3.50 1.33 40-inch, irrigated single-row — — 1.50 2.75 1.33 10-inch, dryland double-row — — 1.00 5.00 — 40-inch, dryland single-row — — 1.33 3.50 - 10-inch, dryland broadcast - - 1.00 7.00 - 40-inch, dryland single-row (2 x 1) — — 1.33 3.50 — 80-inch, irrigated four-row — - - - 1.00 40-inch, irrigated single-row — — — — 1.25 f 34-inch, dryland single-row (2 x 2) ’ T — — 1.00 i» 40-inch, dryland single-row (2 x 2) —- — — — 1.25 1Herbicide at $1.90 per pint. TABLE 5. EQUIPMENT BREAK-EVEN ANALYSIS FOR CONVERTING FROM CONVENTIONAL TO NARROW-ROW ‘l, TION SYSTEMS WITH IRRIGATION, SOUTHERN HIGH PLAINS OF TEXAS, 1974 . x. 4: Type of production system used ,2, Comparison 1 Comparison 2 Comparison 3 Comparison 4 Co L Breakeven analysis 40-inch 40-inch 8-inch 40-inch 32-inch 40-inch 8-inch 40-inclr for soil areas single-row Double-row single-row broadcast single-row single-row single-row three-row single-r ' Fine-textured soils Yield per land acre 448 lbs. 555 lbs. 450 lbs. 479 lbs. - - - - - f: Net return per land acrc‘ $28.74 $53.04 $15.02? $24.82 - - - — — Acres to breakeven 3152 4203 600 1072 Medium-textured soils i‘. Yield per land acre 510 lbs. 588 lbs. 723 lbs. 868 lbs. 676 lbs. 742 lbs. 575 lbs. 600 lbs. — "v Net return per land g acre1 $26.60 $54.82 $88.36 $128.3? $74.6; $73826 $45.43 $54.4? — Acres to breakeven 3382 4802 1052 202 120 135 195 488 - Coarse-textured soils Yield per land acre 622 lbs. 690 lbs. 451 lbs. 496 lbs. 646 lbs. 725 lbs. — —- 488 lbs-é Net return per land Y" acre1 $52.44 $85.80 $13.78 $37.22 $70.54 $71754 - - $23.5; 3 Acres to breakeven 1422 3082 5522 7053 1282 1352' - - 382 1Net returns computed in Table 7. 2Two-row brush stripper @ $9,000. 3Broadcast harvester @ $24,000 and grain drill @ $2,350. 4Additional investment in planter and cultivator @ $800. 8 AXLE 6. EQUIPMENT BREAK-EVEN ANALYSIS FOR CONVERTING FROM CONVENTIONAL TO NARROW-ROW SYSTEMS FOR LAND PRODUCTION, SOUTHERN HIGH PLAINS OF TEXAS, 1974 Type of production system used1 ‘keven Comparison 1 Comparison 2 Comparison 3 Comparison 4 y. sis 40-inch single- 40-inch 40-inch single- 32-inch single- 40-inch single- 40-inch single- 34-inch single- il areas row (2x1) double-row row (2x1) row (2x1) row (2x1) Broadcast row (2x2) row (2x2) ‘Axum-textured soils . per land re 150 lbs. 214 Ibs. 315 lbs. 451 lbs. 150 lbs. 266 lbs. — — returns per ‘ d acrel $2.28 —$2.44 $49.02 $55.46 $2.28 $20.69 - - I to geakeven 39452 . 11.5.5 1802 1802-4 39452 12753 - - I -textured soils per land ~ _ 2 - - 267 lbs. 345 lbs. - - 20o lbs. 222 lbs. freturn per d acre -— _ $32.02 $39.34 — — $25.36 $22.57 t0 y akeven - - 2782 2482-4 - - 3522 4352-4 returns computed from Table 8. ‘o-row brush stripper @ $9000. dcast harvester @ $24,000 and grain drill @ $2,350. ition investment in planter and cultivator @ $800. available.‘ IBLE 7. ESTIMATED COSTS AND RETURNS OF NARROW-ROW PRODUCTION SYSTEMS FOR IRRIGATED COTTON RELATIVE CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTION ON NEARBY SITES, SOUTHERN HIGH PLAINS OF TEXAS, 1974 Type of production system used . 1 . . and returns Comparison Comparison 2 Comparison 3 ‘soil area 40-inch single-row 10- to 14-inch double-row 40-inch single-row 8-inch broadcast 40-inch single-row 32-inch single-row (dollars per crop acre) textured soils I ss receipts1 $189.11 $214.50 $170.57 $181.70 — — g iable costs2 134.12 125.42 129.23 129.71 - - costs3 26.25 26.04 26.25 27.37 - - _ returns4 28.74 63.04 15.09 24.62 - - ium-textured soils oss receipts1 193.41 224.50 274.38 319.40 256.39 281 .60 I riable costsz 135.79 138.80 155.00 156.35 150.73 175.43 Xed costs3 31.02 30.88 31.02 34.69 31.02 32.31 a returns‘ 26.60 54.82 88.36 128.36 74.64 73.86 rseztextu red soils ' ss receipts1 235.76 258.15 172.04 189.80 246.38 275.50 ’_ iable sss1s2 140.68 139.58 125.62 123.21 143.20 170.17 Wed costs3 32.54 32.77 32.64 29.37 32.64 33.58 ’ returns4 62.44 85.80 13.78 37.22 70.54 71.75 Iissuming a price of $0.30 per pound for cotton lint and $100 per ton for seed. Variable costs include seed, chemical, tractors and irrigation equipment, labor, hail insurance, custom harvest, ginning, and interest on operat- g capital. r equipment only and not including land or management costs. ' ree-row systems with 8-inch spacing between rows were also compared with conventional 40-inch single-row on medium-textured soils I: ich produced net returns per acre of $54.43 and $45.47, respectively. On coarse-textured soils, a four-row pattern on an 80-inch bed pro- ced $42.64 per acre net returns compared with $23.52 per acre for conventional 40-inch single-row spacing. 9 TABLE 8. ESTIMATED COSTS AND RETURNS OF NARROW-ROW PRODUCTION SYSTEMS FOR DRYLAND COTTON PR RELATIVE TO CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTION ON NEARBY SITES, SOUTHERN HIGH PLAINS OF TEXAS, 1974 Type of production system used Comparison 1 Comparison 2 Comparison 3 Compari 40-inch 40-inch 40-inch 32-inch 40-inch 8-inch 40-inch Costs and returns single-row double-row single-row single-row single-row broadcast single-row for soil area (2x1) I2x1I (2x1) I2x1I (2x2I (dollars per crop acre) Medium-textured soils Gross receIptsI $85.51 $81.20 $177.59 $186.90 $85.51 $100.80 — Variable costsz 66.42 67.01 88.42 103.21 66.42 70.09 — Fixed costs3 15.67 16.63 15.67 17.18 15.67 10.02 Net returns 3.42 —-2.44 73.50 66.51 3.42 20.69 — Coarse-textured soils _.______ii \ Gross receipts1 — — 152.00 157.20 — — 152.00 Variable costs2 - - 90.42 93.92 - - 87.16 Fixed costss - - 13.57 16.10 - - 14.11 Net returns — — 48.01 47.18 — — 50.73 IAssuming a price of $0.30 per pound for lint and $100.00 per ton for seed. Variable costs include seed, chemicals, tractors and irrigation equipment, labor, hail insurance, custom harvest, ginning, and operati ‘ 3For equipment only and not including land or management costs. ‘ TABLE 9. COMPARISONS OF LINT QUALITY BETWEEN NARROW-ROW AND CONVENTIONAL COTTON PRODUCTION, SOFA I HIGH PLAINS OF TEXAS, AVERAGES FOR 1971 TO 1974 ggm/Zimrtifgsgl Fine-textu red soils Medium-textured soils Coarse-textured vs. narrow row Staple Micronaire VaIueI Staple Micronaire VaIueI Staple Micronaire ‘I 14-inch, irrigated double-row 31.0/32 3.1 $14.60 30.0/32 3.0 $14.15 — — 40-inch, irrigated single-row 31 .7/32 2.9 13.72 30.0/32 3.0 14.15 — - 12-inch, irrigated double-row. 31.5/32 3.2 15.18 — — -— 31 .0/32 3.4 40-inch, irrigated single-row 32.0/32 2.9 14.02 — — — 31 .1/32 3.3 10-inch, irrigated double-row 31 .1/32 3.2 14.95 30.0/32 3.6 15.05 30.5/32 3.6 40-inch, irrigated single-row 32.0/32 2.7 13.80 31 .0/32 3.4 16.05 30.5/32 3.5 11-inch, irrigated double-row 32.0/32 3.5 16.95 — — — — — 40-inch, irrigated single-row 32.0/32 3.0 15.15 — — — — — 8-inch, irrigated broadcast 29.0/32 3.5 15.50 30.0/32 3.5 15.95 31 .0/32 3.6 40-inch, irrigated single-row 31 .O/32 3.5 16.40 31 .O/32 3.0 14.60 31 .0/32 3.5 40-inch, irrigated three-row — — — 31 .0/32 3.4 15.70 — — 40-inch, irrigated single-row — — — 31 .0/32 3.4 15.70 — — 32-inch, irrigated single-row I — — — 31 .8/32 3.6 16.81 31 .3/32 3.5 40-inch, irrigated single-row -— —— — 32.2/32 3.6 17.12 31 .7/32 3.5 80-inch, irrigated four-row —- — —- — — — 315/32 3.4 40-inch, irrigated single-row — — — — — —' 31-5/32 3-4 10-inch, dryland double-row — — — 30.0/32 3.5 15.95 — — 40-inch, dryland single-row I2x1I " —— — 31 .0/32 3.5 16.40 — — 32-inch, dryland single-row I2x1I — ~ — 31 .3/32 3.6 16.35 31 .3/32 3.7 40-inch, dryland single-row (2x1) — — — 31 .7/32 3.4 15.93 31 .3/32 3.6 10-inch, dryland broadcast — — — 30/32 3.5 15.95 — — 40-inch, dryland single-row (2x1) — ~ — 31/32 3.5 16.40 — — 34-inch, dryland single-row (2x2I 7 _ “ — — — 32.0/32 4.0 40-inch, dryland single-row (2x2I 7 _ _ — — — 33.0/32 4.2 IVaIue per hundredweight of lint cotton based upon 1973 upland cotton loan rates for light spotted strict low middling. 10 1 Literature Cited ishears, Alan D., I. W. Kirk, and E. B. Hudspeth, ]r., ”Effects 1 lose-Row Spacing and Plant Population on Double-Row Cot- j’ Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, MP-872, February, _v, l. W., A. D. Bradshaw, and E. B. Hudspeth, lr., ”lnfluence ow Width and Plant Spacing on Cotton Production Charac- ¢ ics on the High Plains,” Texas Agricultural Experiment Sta- MP-937, December, 1969. “n, James L., Ronald D. Lacewell, James E. Casey, L. N. "ken, M. D. Heilmand, and Roy D. Parker, "Impact of Short- vn Cotton Production On Producer Returns, Insecticide Use Energy Consumption-Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas,” ' Agricultural Experiment Station, MP-1204, June, 1975. iendix Tables l PLAINS OF TEXAS, 1971-19731 i‘ NDIX TABLE 1. IRRIGATED COTTON YIELD COMPARISONS Ray, L. L., and E. B. Hu_dspeth,_Jr. "Narrow-Row Cotton Produc- tion,” Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Current Research Report No. 66-5 TA-5564, September, 1966. Ray, L. L., E. B. Hudspeth, lr., and E. R. Holekamp, "Cotton Plant- ing Rate Studies on the High Plains,” Texas Agricultural Experi- ment Station, MP-358, 1959. Wanjura, D. F., and E. B. Hudspeth, lr., ”Effects of Close Row Spacing on Cotton Yields on the Texas High Plains,” Texas Ag- ricultural Experiment Station, Progress Report 2266, March, 1963. Willet, Gayle S., B. Brooks Taylor, and Dwayne R. Buxton, "An Eco- nomic Comparison of Short and Full Season Cotton Production in Arizona," Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Re- port No. 269, August, 1973. BY PRODUCTION METHODS AND SOIL TYPES, SOUTHERN Average lint yield per crop acre in pounds Fine-textured soil F-Value Medium-textured soil F-Value Coarse-textured soil F-Value i- g pattern 1971 1972 1973 1971 1972 1973 1971 1972 1973 le-row, 14-inch spacing (test) 431 650 600 500 600 700 n.a.3 n.a. n.a. 400 750 700 300 631 602 .5 15.282 1 7.292 ow, 40-inch bed (control) 300 470 600 450 475 600 n.a n.a n.a. 266 490 510 L-row, 12-inch spacing (test) 300 600 650 n.a. n.a. n.a 621 600 632 A 350 600 750 719 700 618 - 0.71 2.94 1 row, 40-inch bed (control) 250 580 700 - n.a n.a n.a i 30D 500 776 600 575 600 i-row, 11-inch spacing (test) 325 600 700 n.a. n.a. n.a n.a n.a. n.a ow, 40-inch bed (control) 300 500 550 n.a. n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a -row, 10-inch spacing (test) 475 50o 550 400 500 500 700 s50 650 600 GOO 750 450 700 700 . 0.50 1.94 2.97 d’ ow, 40-inch bed (control) 476 522 700 400 500 550 625 688 648 ‘ 400 600 800 450 576 600 vst, 8-inch spacing (test) 387 450 600 635 1210 760 400 450 600 0.50 0.93 1 .09 ow, 40-inch bed (control) 300 500 550 550 789 840 355 488 512 V ow drilled on 40-inch bed (test) n.a. n.a n.a 450 650 700 n.a. n.a n.a. # 0.43 , 0w, 40-inch bed (control) n.a. n.a n.a 500 600 625 n.a n.a n.a. ow, 32-inch bed (test) n.a. n.a n.a 700 700 s00 600 700 800 4 1 700 700 s00 18.522 700 750 800 11-27 735 697 s45 ‘ow, 40-inch bed (control) n.a. n.a n.a 600 650 700 566 515 792 ‘V, 650 699 756 600 600 700 , 16-inch spacing on 80-inch 2 test) n.a. n.a n.a. n.a n.a n.a 500 500 550 i 600 500 650 i 1.58 gw, 40-inch bed (control) n.a. n.a. n.a n.a. n.a. n.a 375 525 564 i. Data from 1971-1973 producer survey. lly significant at the 1-percent level for analysis of variance test. ilable. lly significant at the 10-percent level for analysis of variance test. 11 APPENDIX TABLE 2.'DRYLAND COTTON YIELD COMPARISONS BY PRODUCTION METHODS AND so|1_ TYPES, sour; PLAINS o|= TEXAS 1971-1973‘ " . 1i Average lint yield per acre in pounds Medium-textu red soil F-Value ' ‘Coarse-textured soil Spacing pattern 1971 1972 1973 1971 l (51972 l 191;; Double-row, 12-inch spacing (test) 200 100 300 n.a.3-" .4 , n.a. n.a. 5- 182 156 342 ' 0.62 , g Single-row (2x1), 40-inch bed (control) 150 150 350 ' - n.a. ‘n.a. n.a. > 142 n.a. 400 ‘_ Single-row (2x1), 32-inch bed (test) 450 s00 600 ' 20o 400 5002’, 500 500 550 30o s00 500.} 475 641 650 349 348 626 i, 4.042 Single-row (2x1), 40-inch bed (control) 300 476 516 200 400 400 350 522 668 266 532 500 i‘ Broadcast, 8-inch spacing (test) 108 205 484 n.a. n.a. n.a _ 0.94 Single-row (2x1), 40-inch bed (control) 146 150 379 ' n.a. n.a. n.a Single-row (2x2), 34-inch bed (test) n.a. n.a. n.a. 200 300 5 Single-row (2x2), 40-inch bed (control) n.a. n.a. n.a. 276 438 lSourcez Data from 1971-1973 producer survey. No dryland test trials were available for the fine-textured soils. zStatistically significant at the 10-percent level for analysis of variance test. 3Not available. The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, j. E. Miller, Director, College Station, Texas 2M — 6-77 Mention of a trademark or a proprietary product does not consti- z _ tute a guarantee or a warranty of the product by The Texas Ag- All programs and information ofTheTexas Agricu -= ricultural Experiment Station and does not imply its approval to Station are available to everyone without regari» l’ the exclusion of other products that also may be suitable. religion, sex, age, or national origin. -