in arizona agriculture College of Agriculture

in arizona agriculture College of Agriculture

IN vie *A imwMO W

agriculture

in

arizona

Vol. XX, No 5

September- October, 1968

College of Agriculture

University of Arizona

Tucson 85721

In this Issue

.

. .

New Students are Welcome

The world of tomorrow is full of mystery, drama and danger yet, that is the world in which you will be living.

It is our job to equip you for that world, that changing world.

The feeble torch of scientific inquiry and knowledge of your father's day is now growing into a larger, brighter light. This light is reaching out into the far corners of this earth, and, yes, even into space itself.

The world of plant and animal science also is changing.

It is mightily being lighted by the advancements of chemistry, electronics, economics and hydrology in finding new, fantastic ways to feed plants and animals

Cover

On the cover this time we feature

Beth Bergschneider, a junior in the

School of Home Economics.

She is majoring in Child Development and

Family relations and says she selected home economics because she likes the close and personal relationships between f a cult y and students in the

School of Home Economics. On page

12 of this issue are others who express themselves on why they selected home economics at the University of Arizona.

If you wish more information write Dr. Ruth C. Hall, Director of

School of Home Economics, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz. 85721.

for healthier and more nutritious living.

Each of you is a pioneer in this

brave new world of tomorrow. Each of you will benefit from the thousands of miracles of science you find here, in our classrooms, libraries, laboratories and in the fields.

If you will expend your energy and exercise the mental curiosity each of you are capable to do, you will learn and explore the mysteries yet uncovered.

We all of us at the university have a concern for your welfare and progress.

We hope this dramatic epoch in your life, your college years, will be both interesting and instructive, enjoyable as well as educational.

The transition from high school to a university may be difficult, especially if the student assumes that the university is merely a continuation of high school.

You'll find that in the university there are no supervised study periods.

Also, since most of you will be away from home for the first time, you will find a need for self -discipline regarding the division of your time which includes self -imposed study periods.

This self- discipline of itself is one of the most valuable things you will learn while here.

We have found that the successful students are those who learn early to develop self -discipline in regard to wise division and allotment of time.

The successful student learns early to put off the temptations of diversion until the main job of classes and class preparation is amply provided for.

We cannot stress too strongly our belief that your own success requires a rapid adjustment to such self- discipline.

It will take all the energy and ability that you can muster to achieve this stature.

Tillage Systems Tested

Cattle Auction in Gila

Risk in Cotton Production

Termites in Arizona

Ponderosa Pine Management

Home Economics? I Love It!

Net Returns in Final

Pesticide Use in Arizona

Livestock Ranch Budgets

Growers Can Go Broke

Aggies Write Books

Niftmeit

page

3

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

24

To give you the opportunity for education which will be with you the rest of your life, your parents and the

State of Arizona are together contributing the cost of helping you earn your education. You owe a loyalty to them as well as to yourself.

Meanwhile, we hope that you will enjoy all of the benefits of this college environment. We hope you'll discover the cultural as well as the material.

And, after four years we want you to leave this campus as a complete, well adjusted person, able to contribute your capabilities to your job; to your cultural, social and political life in your community, state and nation.

In a very real personal sense we have a deep interest and high hopes in you and your progress.

We'll all do our very best to help you develop the best of your abilities, as a student and as an adult in a free society.

Harold E. Myers, Dean

College of Agriculture

School of Home Economics

Progressive Agriculture in Arizona

September -October, 1968, Vol. XX, No. 5

Published Bi- Monthly by the College of Agriculture, including Agricultural Experiment Station,

Cooperative Extension Service and Resident Instruction in the College of Agriculture and the School of Home Economics at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721.

Harold E. Myers, Dean.

Entered as second class matter March 1, 1949 at the Post Office at Tucson, Arizona, under the

Act of August 24, 1912.

Second Class postage paid at Tucson, Arizona.

Articles and illustrations in this publication are provided by the faculty and staff of the College of Agriculture.

Editorial use of information contained herein is encouraged.

Photos or other Illustrat:ons will be furnished on request.

Editorial board members are: Drs. Mary Ann Kight, William R. Kneebone, Darrel S. Metcalfe

(ex officio), James J. Sheldon; and Messrs. Harvey Tate, and George Alstad, chairman and editor.

The tractor was equipped with three chisels and four listers splitting old beds and building new beds on the old furrows.

The Evaluation of Pre -plant

Tillage Systems

in Cotton

Production

Chisel bed equipment as installed on the tractor is shown above.

The arch at hitch point was used to make the draft measurements.

by H. N. Stapleton and M. M. Machado

multiple passes and a large expenditure of energy.

Alternatives in pre -plant systems had been suggested, but the comparative yield response to these systems was not known.

In 1965, experiments were initiated at the Cotton

Research Center, and at the Marana, and Safford Experiment Farms to :

( 1 ) Evaluate and compare the cotton yield response to certain pre -plant tillage systems and, ( 2 ) Provide numerical data for comparing the energy input and capacitive performance of the machines used in these pre plant tillage systems.

The pre -plant tillage systems used in the experiment were as follows:

Marana

& Safford

1

CRC

A

Treatment

2

3

4

5

B

C

Conventional: Chop stalks, disc, p 1 o w, disc to reduce clods, float or drag and bed.

List Only : Chop stalks, bed.

Chisel -List (shallow) : Chop stalks, chisel list with chisels set at 10 -14 inches below the surface of the old furrow.

Chisel -List (medium) : Chop stalks, chisel list with chisels set at 15 -18 inches below the surface of the old furrow.

Chisel -List

(deep) :

Chop stalks, chisel list with chisels set at 18 -22 inches below the surface of the old furrow.

Cost reduction in a production system contributes to optimization of net return. In Arizona, more than 50 percent of the production costs for cotton can be attributed to machine operations and labor. The costs of land, water and production supplies are essentially rigid.

The selection, management, and operation of machines offer the cotton grower the most feasible approach to cost reduction.

Pre -plant tillage operations in the cotton production system are a major source of machinery and labor costs.

The pre -plant tillage operation usually pre -sets the power, the size, and the number of units, and may prescribe the basic design of the equipment tool bars or "carriages" in the machinery system.

The "conventional" pre -plant tillage system

( chop stalks- disk -plow- disk -float -bed ) has dictated large prime movers due to the heavy tillage operation ( plowing ) , and the development of higher field capacities. A considerable array of equipment is also required, together with

* Professor of Agricultural Engineering, and former Lecturer in

Agricultural Engineering, now with the Shell Oil Company, San

Francisco, California.

Page 3

Progressive Agriculture

Three years of data were collected at the three Experiment Farms in the crop years from 1965 through 1967.

Four replications of each treatment were used at each plot location.

The yield data for the three years of experiments were consolidated and the data analyzed.

Gross field yield in pounds of seed cotton per acre was used as the basis of comparison.

The results of the 3 years data from each location are presented graphically in Figure 1.

This bar -chart shows that there was a trend of increased yield for one or more of the minimum -pass chisel -list treatments.

Statistical analysis of the data showed significant differences in yields at Marana and CRC in 1966, and at

Marana and Safford in 1967.

However, when the data for the three years of tests were combined, no statistically significant differences could be shown.

(Turn to page 22)

Gila Cattle Auction

.

o

A Smashing Success!

Cattlemen and bankers alike say the Gila Cattle Auction is the modern way to market cattle.

There's nothing deadlier than that long ride back to town with a buyer

who didn't want your

cattle, Bob

Boice says.

And, for the cattlemen in Gila county the sale solves this problem as well as bringing roughly three cents more per pound.

Husband and wife team, Bob and

Iiriam Boice ( pictured in first column from left ) say, "we're getting about the same net, but with a lot less work. We no longer worry about the cattle being sold especially when there's more than one buyer around wanting the same bunch."

«'innie and Louie Horrell

( 2nd col., top) said, "buyers want to see the cattle they buy. At the ranch we can show about 10 per cent of them; at the sale yard he sees all of them."

Roy Hicks told Pat Gray,

Gila county agricultural agent in charge

( 2nd col., happy this year our first year in the sale bottom)

"we're really year get a few cents above market."

"This year's sale," explained Steve and Maxine Bixby (3rd col., top) was in two parts one for steers and one for heifers. The sale grew from 1,500 head the first, year to 3,599 head this, the third year.

Lloyd Hicks

( 3rd col., middle) pointed out that this year's sale was his first and he told Pat Gray "it was the best sale to hit our county in a long time. We sold all of our animals this year," he added.

"Pat Gray has been a stupendous help in organizing this sale. Without him we might not have gotten it off the ground. He kept us going when problems were discouraging," said

Blanche and Earl Horrell

( 3rd col., bottom )

.

They added, "a lot of people who were first opposed to the sale idea now want into it."

In the local area around Globe

there are about three cattlemen currently not participating in the sale.

Another to enter the sale for the first time this year is Joe Bassett ( not pictured)

.

He felt, "there's a lot more money in cattle selling when they are sorted out by sex and weight" the practice of the Gila Cattle Auction.

Chester Cooper

( 4th col., top ) said, "best thing that ever happened in Gila County. Besides better prices there's no worry as to the sale dates, no need to run all over the area look-

ing for buyers, and you can plan

your work schedule better."

Steve Bixby, Jr., ( 4th col., middle ) felt the new scales just installed at the pens would be another factor in help ing next year's sale be a success. Buyers will know not have to guess how much the cattle weigh.

Fay Bohme ( 4th col., bottom, and you pronounce it Bo -me ) said, "it's the coming way to sell cattle. We raise light weight yearlings in this high country where spring comes late.

We topped the sale last year with steers and heifers and this year we topped the sale with heifers. Pat Gray was the instigator of the sale and has done a h - - - ava swell job.

It takes

(Turn to page 23)

September- October, 1968

Page 4

The

Risk

Factor

In

Arizona's

Cotton

Production by John R. Wildermuth & Russell L. Gum'

Arizona farmers are well aware that there is an element of "uncertainty" or risk in agriculture. In cotton production this uncertainty ( risk ) is due to factors which lead to variations in yields, prices, and subsequently income. The experienced farmer is undoubtedly aware of the nature and existence of these factors. However, experience itself is often limited and/ or may be based on a "biased" sample of unusual years. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to provide a more objective measure of the random yield, price, and income variability associated with cotton production in

Arizona.

Measurement of Variability

Some research workers have the view that in the eyes of the farmer any deviation from the long -run avera random or unpredictable age is event.

Such an approach essentially represents a "no knowledge" situation.

It is more realistic to assume that farmers recognize certain long -run

Both are Assistant Professors of Agricultural Economics.

* ' The data is taken from Arizona Agricultural Statistics, 1966, 1967 and 1966.

This yearly publication is compiled by the Arizona Crop and Livestock Reporting Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical

Reporting Scrcicc and published in cooperation with the Department of Agricultural

Economics, Uníccrsity of Arizona.

physical and economic trends; for example, technological advances, inflation, and price cycles.

Thus, farmers planning crop production for the oncoming year are more likely to view the "random" element as a deviation from the "current level" of prices or yields. Therefore, the variability estimates presented here are measures of only this unpredictable portion of total variability.

centage terms, the degree of random or unpredictable variability relative to the current level of the item in question.

For example, the random variation ( variation other than long -term trends ) in

Arizona upland cotton prices over the years has been about

2.82 cents per pound, while the current level

( average over the last 5 years ) averages about 29.85 cents per pound, Table

1.

Accordingly, the variability index for Arizona upland cotton prices is 2.82 ± 29.85 = .095, or 9.5 percent.

All subsequent variability indexes are computed similarly.

Variability measures for both upland and long staple cotton have been derived from Arizona state price and county yield historical data.**

Assuming that future variability for these crops is closely related to past variability, these estimates should be realistic in an average sense.

It must be remembered that for certain farms or areas within a county the true variability may be higher or lower depending upon specific climatic, resource, and economic conditions.

Thus, these estimates should be interpreted as somewhat optimistic in general, for yield fluctuations on individual farms may be partially "evened out" in the compilation of the county series.

Price Variability

The variability index shows in per-

Over the last five years, Arizona producers have received an average price of 50.18c /lb. for long staple cotton.

The corresponding r a n d o m variability and variability index are

4.86c/lb. and 9.7 percent, respectively. Thus, pricewise long staple cotton is only slightly more risky than upland cotton.

However, as we will now show, this is not so in the case of yield.

Yield Variability

Upland and long staple yield variability coefficients are presented for each of the Arizona counties growing

2,000 or more acres of the crop, Table

September- October, 1968

Page 6

2.

As can be seen from inspection of this table, there is considerable difference in these county coefficients.

Pinal County has the lowest yield variability coefficient for both upland and long staple cotton ( 5.2 and 13.4, respectively)

.

At the other extreme,

Cochise County has the highest coefficient for upland

(15.1)

, while

Maricopa County has the highest long staple yield variability (21.1)

.

Thus, we go on record with the obvious conclusion that the degree of stability in cotton production varies considerably across the state.

Further, the environmental factors which lead to stability in upland yields do not insure an equivalent stability in long staple yields.

( Maricopa County has one of the lowest variability coefficients for upland,

8.2, and the

highest for long staple, 21.1.) for one year out of ten the gross income will be just as much above the average as it year."

This is is below in our "bad

However, the point to be emphasized here is that for the farmer operating on a very thin profit margin, a "bad year" might spell disaster.

especially the case for the beginning, or any other, farmer who is operating with a low equity and /or large outstanding debt.

It must be remembered that these estimates are somewhat optimistic, for as stated earlier, yield fluctuations on individual farms may be partially

CC evened out" in the compilation of the county series.

Nevertheless, these estimates may be used as guidelines for gauging risk.

To illustrate, we point out that if a farmer can make

enough profit, even under a "bad

year" gross income, to meet all fixed obligations, then little risk is involved.

The situation is fairly risky if a "bad year gross income falls short of the above, but the farmer can remain solvent.

At the extreme is the situation where a "bad year" gross income will force the farmer to liquidate his holdings.

It may be that even in the third and most pessimistic case, that the potential gains far exceed the potential losses.

That is something that each individual must evaluate for himself.

The data which have been provided herein are intended to facilitate just such an evaluation.

Table 1.

Arizona State Cotton Price Variability.

Gross Income Variability

We now pull together the two separate components, price and yield, to arrive at the gross income variability coefficients.

This will enable us to make a more definitive statement regarding the size of the "risk burden."

The county gross income variability data are presented in Table 3.

In addition to the average

( expected) gross income and its variability coefficient, we also present a "bad year gross income figure ( columns 3 and

6 of Table 3)

.

This "bad year" gross income is derived through application of the variability coefficient to the expected gross income, and should be interpreted to mean that at least one year out of ten, gross income will be this low or lower.

We should keep in mind that there is another side to this variability coin,

Average price last 5 years

Variability coefficient

Table 2.

Upland

29.85

9.5% lb.

Extra Long Staple

County Yield Variability Comparisons.a

50.180/lb.

9.7%

Cochise

Graham

Maricopa

Pima

Pinal

Yuma last 5 years

858

841

1,096

894

1,131

1,511

Upland

Average yield

County lbs. lint /acre over

Variability

Coefficient

15.1

11.1

8.2

11.0

5.2

5.9

Extra Long Staple

Average yield lbs. lint /acre over last 5 years

639

541

666

623 b a Only those counties growing in excess of 2,000 acres are included.

b Insufficient acreage.

Variability

Coefficient

17.3

21.1

16.9

13.4

b

Table 3.

County Gross Income Variability Comparisons.a

Upland

Extra Long Staple

County

Cochise

Graham

Maricopa

Pima

Pinal

Yuma

Average gross income per acre over last 5 years

(dollars)

257

251

327

268

337

450

Variability coefficient

21.1

17.1

12.9

15.7

8.3

9.8

"Bad year "b gross income per acre

( dollars)

187

196

273

214

301

393

Average gross income per acre over last 5 years

(dollars)

321

273

334

312 c

Variability coefficient

/( c

22.6

27.5

24.6

21.3

C

"Bad year "b gross income per acre

(dollars)

28

176

229

227 c a Only those counties growing in excess of 2,000 acres are included.

b A "bad year" as defined is expected to occur one out of 10 years. Another way to interpret this is that there is a 10 percent chance that gross income will be this low or lower.

Insufficient acreage.

TERMITES

Arizona

by W. L. Nutting'

Arizona has more different kinds of termites within its borders than any other state. This boast could be made pridefully by none but a naturalist or biologist. The figures behind this impressive statement: 18 of the 40 species of termites known in the United

States have thus far been found in this state.

Indeed, 16 of these may be found in the desert and canyon country within 25 miles of Tucson.

This puts Arizona at least three species ahead of California and one ahead of Texas. Since our knowledge of the

Arizona insect fauna is still far from complete, the prospects of discovering two or three more are good.

A hasty and reassuring explanation is in order, however. Of this number only about a half -dozen are of any real economic importance

they

present no more serious problems

than do the termites of any other

state through the South and West.

Termites are social insects - like ants or bees and live in colonies

* Professor of Entomology.

Photographs are provided by Mervin

W. Larson, Arizona-

Sonora Desert 11uscuni.

which may after a few years number many thousands of individuals. There is a division of labor in these colonies, for most of them are composed of workers, soldiers and reproductive forms. In certain forms child labor is the rule - the young do all the labor of "constructing" ( gnawing out ) the galleries, foraging for food and tending the king, queen and their brood.

Soldiers defend the colony against ants and other insect enemies. Both workers and soldiers are usually pale colored, soft bodied and blind.

Quite different -looking male and female forms are generally produced at certain seasons of the year. These are darker -colored insects with two pairs of well -developed wings. Here in

Arizona winged forms generally leave the colonies during periods of high humidity accompanying the summer or winter rains.

large numbers of the

The flight is

short and the

adults soon settle, lose their wings and pair to begin new colonies. Considering the numbers which start these flights, those which eventually succeed in establishing themselves are very few indeed: adult termites are a choice item in the diets of many ants, spiders, lizards and birds.

In undisturbed country termites are scavengers, that is, they play an important role in converting dead wood and other plant materials into humus and plant food. For all practical purposes there are two main types : the so- called "dry wood" termites and the "subterranean" termites.

Each type has a fairly definite place in nature, and differs considerably in its general habits, food preferences and choice of nesting sites.

It follows then that their methods of attack on man -made structures and holdings will differ as will the resulting damage. Needless to say, the methods of termite prevention or control to be applied in each case will depend upon the type of termite involved and a knowledge of the extent and severity of the damage expected or found.

It might be of general interest and some value to summarize the differences between the two kinds of ter-

September-October, 1968

Page 8

mites and their work. The dry -wood termites have relatively small and slower growing colonies. They can, and usually do, live in dry, sound wood without any contact with the ground or soil. Their "nests" consist

of interconnecting chambers and

holes cutting across the grain of the softer "spring" and the harder "summer" wood. Their dry fecal pellets or "sawdust ", looking like tiny seeds, are often found in the galleries or in concealed places outside.

The dry wood termites often attack buildings, especially the flooring, sills, joists and

rafters, and even furniture. For some of these reasons, the structural dam-

age from their attack

is generally much slower in appearing and less severe than that incurred from the subterranean type.

By comparison, the subterranean or desert termites form large colonies within a very few years. The main part of the colony or nest is always in the soil where a certain amount of moisture is necessary for their existence. They attack all types of dead wood and plant material in contact with the soil, and where this is not available they will build dry, mud like shelter tubes over the ground, stone or concrete in order to reach attractive wood. These termites also frequently attack buildings, but more often restrict their workings to structures nearer the ground such as porches, baseboards, moldings, and trim.

They generally confine their galleries to the softer spring wood and work parallel to the grain. Their dark brown fecal matter is used in plastering their galleries and tubes.

All of our termites were here long before the advent of man. With his arrival, and very recently with the wide use of wood and water in his own economy, the natural economy of some termites has been most favorably affected. Take, for example, the dark, western dry -wood termite, Incisitermes minor: its colonies are fairly abundant in the hard, dry logs and dead branches of ash and other trees in Sabino Canyon. For many years now, however, it has also been found in the hardwood floors in the older houses of Tucson an environment much to its liking. Or consider Het erotermes aureus, one of the commonest desert subterranean termites : it is

at home beneath debris along the

washes in the desert and foothills all around us. Cactus skeletons and other bits of dead wood provide its food.

Now more than one Tucson householder is dismayed to find it building mud tunnels on the side of his house and tunneling its way through the books on his shelves.

Only two other dry -wood termites and perhaps three or four other subterranean forms are at present of any real economic concern to us in Arizona. The remaining 11 or 12 species keep to their places in nature, over half of them being rare and little

k n o w n entomological curiosities.

However, as Arizona expands, particularly residential living into desert and foothill areas, and mining operations in completely untouched regions, all of them are of potential economic importance.

This expansion could take place with a minimum of trouble and waste from termite problems. It will depend upon the honesty and diligence of homeowners and prospective buyers, builders and developers, control operators and responsible officials alike.

It will require strict observance by all concerned of existing building regula-

Page 9

Progressive Agriculture tions and technical recommendations.

Finally, it will demand a continuing review of preventative and control materials, and methods based upon a sound biological knowledge of these complex social insects.

In this regard, members of the Department of Entomology have had a continuing interest in the termites of

Arizona dating back to the collections, identifications and recommendations of L. P. Wehrle and C. T. Vorhies in the

'30's and '40's.

During recent years an increasing amount of time has been spent in gathering and publishing the necessary basic biological information on the termite fauna of the Southwest, most species of which are found nowhere else in the United

States.

Research is currently being done on the relations between the seasonal flights of the winged reproductive stage to local weather conditions, as well as on their later behavior which leads to the foundation of new colonies.

Queen termite, workers and soldiers.

Water Use and Management

Arizona's principle source of water originates on the mountain watersheds in the northern part of the state.

The density and condition of the ponderosa pine forests which cover most of these watersheds affects the distribution of precipitation on the watersheds and greatly influences the water lost to streamflow by evapotranspiration.

Knowledge of water use by this important species and therefore the potential for improving water yield is fundamental to sound forest and watershed management in Arizona.

-7 i

% by W. L. Russel

& J. L. Thames*

Many of the pine stands in northern Arizona are dense stagnated second -growth stands which have shown a trend toward less runoff than has been reported from virgin ponderosa pine forests.

Results of the study reported here indicate that cutting and thinning these stands has a definite effect on the amount of water withdrawn from the soil, but the relationship between thinning or clearcutting and water use is not a simple one.

The study was conducted on Bureau of Indian Affairs' land near McNary, Arizona during the period from

March 19 through September 8, 1966.

Study sites were representative of the second- growth ponderosa pine stands and one of the major soil types

( Sponseller clay loam ) found in the region.

Three 0.6 acre study sites were established in August, 1963.

One site was left in a natural condition, with approximately 150 square feet of basal area per acre, another site was clear -cut and all other vegetation killed with chemicals, and the third site was thinned to about 40 percent of the original timber volume.

The water content of the soil was measured periodically with a neutron probe.

Six access tubes for the probe were installed near the center of each study site and readings of soil water content were taken periodically at 1, 2, and 3 -feet below the soil surface.

The soil water data collected during the study period were used to compare the effects of natural, thinned and clearcut stands of ponderosa pine, depth of measurement, and date of measurement on the water regime of the soil.

In order to minimize the influence of slight differences in soil characteristics and differences in the initial water content between the three sites, water contents were expressed as differences from those measured on a selected base date.

March 19, when water content was at maximum, and June 8 were used as base dates.

Statistical analyses showed that differences in water loss between sites and between soil depths within sites were significant.

Soil water loss at the three measurement depths averaged over all sites decreased with depth; the greatest losses occuring in the upper foot of soil as shown in

Figure 1.

It was found that the accretion and depletion patterns of soil water in the upper foot of soil were similar between sites, indicating that evaporation rather than transpiration was the dominant factor in water removal near the soil surface.

At deeper depths, the water content under the cleared site was highest at all times as might be expected due to the absence of roots.

Greatest differences between the natural and thinned sites occurred at 2 feet.

Differences were only a few percent at the 3 -foot depth.

* Graduate of the University of Arizona Watershed Management

Department and now with the U.S. Forest Service, Phoenix; and

Associate Watershed Management Specialist at the U of A.

-2

-.3

-4

-5 o

.

_

--

--.

'

Comparison of water loss on the different sites for the entire period of study showed water loss decreasing on the order, natural thinned and

3 FEET

.- 2 FEET cleared ( Figure 2)

.

However, the mean difference between the natural and thinned site was only about 20 percent of the difference between the natural and cleared site, even though there was apparently a 60 percent reduction in vegetation volume on the thinned site. This is not a direct proportional relationship between vege-

-6 tation removal and reduction in water loss as has been shown by studies con-

ducted in the eastern part of the

country.

-8

I FOOT

_9

-IO

-0.7

I z

0.5 cn

Q

W r

-I I

-12

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

1

JUNE

JULY

There was nearly an 80 percent difference in water loss between the natural and cleared site which is reminescent of the 80 percent increase in streamflow that occurred during the spring snowmelt period in the famous Wagon Wheel Gap experiTIME -MONTHS

AUGUST

SEPT.

- 0.1 W a

Figure 1.

Soil water losses, expressed as differences from the base reading of March

19, 1966.

September- October, 1968

Page 10

onderosa Pine in Northern Arizona

ment in Colorado when a watershed was clearcut.

During the summer period beginning June 8, maximum water loss occurred in the third foot of soil.

The upper foot had a mean increase of

1.7 percent water while the second foot had a loss of 0.2 percent and the third foot had a loss of 1.0 percent.

Comparisons of the mean water content between sites for all depths showed there were no significant differences among the three treatments during summer.

Thus, summer rainfall is quickly lost to evapotranspiration and should not be expected to contribute appreciably to streamflow under normal conditions.

Working with actual water content measurements rather than differences, it was found that the cleared site had a mean water content for the entire period of study of 32 percent.

The

-9

-10

-I I

Figure 2.

if water yields are to be significantly increased.

be persuaded to such action only

continuing water supplies could

Page 11 if

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

TIME - MONTHS

Soil water losses, expressed as differences

19, 1966.

natural and thinned sites had a mean water content of 24 and 22 percent, respectively.

The cleared site at the beginning of the study had a water content about 3.5 percent higher than on the other sites.

It has been shown in Colorado that water content of forest soils in spring affect the subsequent loss of water during

It has also been established that more snow summer.

accumulates in forest clearings than under the surrounding

Although snow measurements were not made durtrees.

ing this study, differences in snow accumulation between treatments may be an explanation of the initial high water content of the cleared site.

Results of the study lead to the conclusion that clear cutting a pine stand can reduce annual soil water losses and that thinning may be effective in some instances.

However, the changes due to thinning will most likely not be proportional to the amount of vegetation removed and the relationship between reduction in stand density and reduction in water use varies with the season of the year.

Apparently, rather severe treatments are called for

These results lead to some interesting speculations concerning management practices in the Pine Forest of

Arizona.

What effect would clear -cutting or drastically thinning a watershed have on recreation, forage and wildlife habitat? Certainly, recreationists and game managers would not stand idly by. The general public could convinced that be assured to relieve

Progressive Agriculture

I

`.

\

4%

,

.r

CLEARED

SITE

THINNED

SITE

__

drastic shortages.

Nevertheless, good watershed management may require large scale cuttings or severe restructuring of the forest.

by block cutting.

JUNE JULY quire restructuring the present

IlNATURAL

SITE

AUGUST from the base reading of March

The problem is how to do this under the policy of multiple use management as practiced in modern forestry.

Already in the high mountains in other parts of the

West we are becoming used to the idea of timber harvest

In this type of cutting the forest is clearcut in small alternate blocks or patches.

Such a cutting practice might also suit management of Arizona's timbered watersheds and achieve the least possible conflict for multiple use purposes.

It has been demonstrated that clearcutting in blocks can be made under skillful supervision with minimum damage to soils and water quality.

Forest management under these conditions will reforests stands. The price will be more research on how this may be accomplished efficiently and economically.

However, the price may well be offset by increased and well -regulated yields of clean water from the rapid melt in spring of snow accumulated in the forest openings during winter and by the reduction in loss of this water by evapotranspiration during spring.

Game habitats would be benefitted by the greatly increased border area between openings and forest and cattle interests might also be enhanced by forage improvement.

Perhaps recreationists as well, might overlook the temporary disturbance from cutting and take an interest in the esthetics of

I-

SEPT.

0.7

z

O

0.5áW

0.3

o w

0.1 á

?

into even -age a well -planned forest operation.

Certainly, timber harvesting would be simplified and the savings could be passed on to the state.

From left, Veronica Elliott of Douglas, "I like everything about home economics "; Sharon Gastelum of Tumacacori, "teaching clothing and textiles provides everything I want "; Betsy Middleton of

Yuma likes home economics "because of the wonderful people you meet "; and Marcia O'Harrow of Mesa says "I just love it here."

Stephanie Smith, left, of Clifton majoring in fashion merchandise says "home economics provides many things which you can apply to every day life." With her is Marlene Klimek of Tucson.

What I like about Home Economics

.. .

"Home economics is not just cooking and

!wing.

People just do not realize that there's much more to it.

And, there are so many things coming out that you can never really am all of it."

-

This is the belief of Marlene Klimek, a

)me economics student at the University of rizona majoring in home economics education.

Marlene is a Tucsonan who reacted very much e way most of the students did who are picred on these pages when asked: Why did you lect home economics?

And, Marlene responded with "I love it!

I ve it!

I love it!"

To her home economics is an art which kes a great deal of education, skill and knowledge.

It's such a rapidly changing field you must constantly keep up with the new developments.

"The really remarkable thing is you have the social, chemical and biological sciences; the arts and humanities all tied in with every part of home economics."

"You need all this training because you must understand people the individual and appreciate why they have the reactions they do.

This is why all of the classes are so important to me.

"When I teach I want to try to set up some system of goals to stimulate young students into wanting to learn.

It's really a teaching challenge, but so is every part of home economics."

"One of my fears," she added, "is that I will not have enough time to learn all I need.

Yet, my ultimate goal is to be the best wife, homemaker and mother that sibly be." a person can pos-

Some people say that a homemaker should have a clean house, balance her budget and put the right groceries on the table.

But, one of the most important goals is to make people at home in your home whether they are friends and neighbors, or your husband's business associates.

"I'm training for a profession.

I also feel I can use it in my home as well."

"That's why I love home economics!"

Martha Caldwell of Amarillo, Tex., diser."

"I've always had the desire to be a fashion merchan-

1

I

Patricia Coenen, from left, of Greenwich, Conn., is concentrating her studies in child development and family relations "because I like working with children"; Dianne Neville of Tucson is preparing for child welfare work; and Linda ( Mrs. Patrick) Hoff pauir of Tucson thinks "home economics is great."

Vicki Sholty of Goodyear begins work this month for a large department store in Pasadena, Calif., after graduating with a major in clothing and textiles.

I Love It!

I Love It!

josette

( Mrs. Rog er) Kanerva q

Tucson says "I lov: the field of dietet ics

.

.

.

workin with people

.

.

A particularly the plication of dietci ics in hospitals."

1

Lorna Libbcy of Potrerillos, Chile, "I like th art of interior design."

For Pinal County Growers

.

.

Source of Net Returns

by William E. Martin, Harold M. Stults & Robert A. Young*

General crop farms in Pinal County contained 96.6

percent of all cropped acreage in that county in

1967.

Only 3.4 percent of cropped acreage was devoted to vegetables and citrus, mostly on specialized farms. A breakdown of this acreage by crop is shown in the accompanying table.

What are the sources of net income to these general

It is well -known that cotton is important crop farms?

to the Arizona farm economy, but just how important is it? A recent study of typical Pinal County farming units, based on personal interviews with 120 Pinal County farmers enables us to answer these questions.

The answers are illustrated in the accompanying figures.

Figure 1 shows acres of each crop for the county on the horizontal axis and net returns over variable costs per acre on the vertical axis.

Therefore, the area of each rectangle shows total net returns over variable costs for each crop for the entire county.

Variable costs are those costs which are incurred directly in the production of a given crop and thus may accurately and logically be debited against that specific crop.

All fixed costs must still be paid out of net returns above variable costs. Fixed costs include such items as depreciation, interest on investment, taxes, insurance, and certain repairs, as well as any return to management.

Figure 1 shows that the contribution of short staple cotton toward net income is of overwhelming importance.

And, of cotton's contribution, over half is income from government price support and acreage diversion pay-

Table 1.

Cropped Acres, Pinal County, 1967.

Upland Cotton

American -Egyptian Cotton

Grain Sorghum

Barley

Wheat

Alfalfa

Other Field Crops

Acres

81,100

6,300

40,000

45,000

11,700

21,000

9,700

Subtotal

Vegetables

Citrus

214,800

7,090

380

Total

222,270 a Professor of Agricultural Economics; Agricultural Economist with

Natural Resource Economics Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture; and Associate

Professor of Agricultural Economics, respectively.

September- October, 1968

Percent

36.5

2.8

18.0

20.2

5.3

9.4

4.4

96.6

3.2

0.2

100.0

Page 14

ments.

( There is a certain arbitrariness in subtracting variable costs from market returns instead of from government payments.

However, since government payments are subject to change by Congress, we have chosen the former course. ) The data are shown for the past year, 1967, when the average weighted market price for

Pinal County cotton was about 29.7 cents per pound of lint.

In 1966, when the market price was about 22.5 cents per pound, total government payments were approximately the same size and constituted about 70 percent of net income over variable costs.

The obvious implication of these data is that total net returns to Pinal County farmers are to a very large degree dependent on government programs. In fact, it is possible that future changes in government programs for upland cotton will have more effect on total farm net income than any other technical or cost factor including the declining water table. This is not to suggest that technology or cost factors should be ignored, but simply that the magnitudes of their possible effects on total net farm income are relatively small when compared to income factors.

The large change in net income between 1966 and 1967 because of the change in market price ( resulting from reduced acreage allotments ) , is an illustration of the principle.

So far the discussion has been only in terms of net income after payment of variable costs.

How much of this net income is left after fixed costs are paid as well?

Figure 2 gives this picture for the county as a whole.

Estimates from our study showed fixed costs to vary from about $97 per acre on small sized farms down to about

$46 per acre on the largest sized farms. A weighted average for the county as a whole was $53 per cropped acre.

We here define fixed costs as depreciation, taxes, insurance, certain repairs not included as variable costs, and interest on investment excluding investment in the land.

Thus, any net income left may be considered as net return to land and management.

Note that if fixed costs are spread evenly over all cropped acres at $53 per acre ( the low rectangle under the dotted line in Figure 2)

, only cotton covers its share of the fixed costs.

On this basis, the grains and alfalfa cover less than 50 percent of their share of fixed costs per acre.

However, a better way of observing the total net return to land and management is to redistribute the leftover fixed costs on the grain and alfalfa acreage to the cotton acreage and observe the remaining areas in the two cotton rectangles.

The hatched areas in Figure 2 show that income which is needed to cover these fixed costs.

The remaining white areas represent net return to land and management.

In 1967, net return to land and management is represented by the two small cotton rectangles above the hatched area plus the government payments rectangle

( see Figure 2)

.

If the cotton price situation of 1966 (22 cents per pound) had been illustrated, only a part of the government payments rectangle would have been left.

That is, there is no net return to land and management on typical Pinal County farms without government payments when cotton sells at 22 cents per pound.

350

300

250

Government

Payments

200

350

300

250 Government

Payments

200

150

100

Upland

Cotton

7

American- Egyptian

Cotton

50 o

0 50

Grain Sorghum

Wheat

/

Alfalfa

Barley

100

150

Acres (Thousands)

200

250

Figure 1.

Estimated Net Returns Over Variable Costs,

Pinal County, 1967.

150

100

Upland

Cotton

American- Egyptian

Cotton

50

1

Grain Sorghum

Wheat Ir

Alfalfa

0

50

100

150

Acres (Thousands)

200

250

Figure 2.

Estimated Net Returns Over Variable and Fixed Costs,

Pinal County, 1967.

Pesticide Use in Arizona

by R. C. Angus, C. H. Kreader and C. C. Roan

The Arizona Community Study Pesticide Project* * is engaged in investigations of the effects of long -term exposure to pesticides on public health.

One part of this program of research is directed toward estimating quantity of pesticides used for agricultural purposes in Arizona.

This paper reports the results of this study.

Estimates of pesticide consumption have been obtained from major agricultural chemical companies doing business in Arizona.

Direct contact was made with officers of each of these companies with the understanding that individual data would be confidential but that aggregated data were not. The estimates are not considered complete but regarded as a realistic estimate of actual pesticide usage.

Data for 1965 are thought to be less complete because this was the first attempt at collection.

Usage of chlorinated hydrocarbons and organic phosphates together with other materials are listed in Table 1.

The next step in the study was to break down the consumption figures into pesticide use by county. This type of breakdown requires several judgments due to a wide variation in application rates by areas and by crop. Since data on specific applications by crops and areas is not available, one procedure to estimate county consumption would be to proportion state totals by crop acres by county.

This produces estimates which are particularly synthetic because of differences in the relative importance of specific crops in different counties.

Consultation with producers, agricultural chemical companies and specialists at the Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service resulted in ranking of crops by quantity of pesticide applied per acre. It was found that the heaviest pesticide use was on cotton, alfalfa and lettuce and these crops use about one third of Arizona crop land.

However, a more realistic way to divide total pesticide use by counties would be to base estimates on total acreage in cotton, alfalfa, vegetables and citrus in each county.

These estimates by acreage were made for 1965,

1966, and 1967 and were summarized in Tables 2 and 3.

* Respectively. Professor of Agricultural Economics, Assistant in

Entomology, and Professor of Entomology and Project Director.

* * Supported in part by Contract No. 86 -65 -84 Pesticide

Program,

FDA, Consumer Protection and Environmentals Health Service,

D.H.E.W. Atlanta, Ga.

Table 1.

Pounds of Technical Material Used in

Arizona

1966

1967

1965

Chlorinated Hydrocarbons

Aldrin

BHC

Captan

6,000

5,200

13,100

22,200

Chlordane

Chlorobenzilate

DDT

Dieldrin

Dilan

Endrin

Heptachlor

Kelthane

PCNB

150

544,600

10,100

5,540

45,900

2,300

55,600

121,400

Nemagon

Perthane

Rhothane

Strobane

Telone

Thiodan

Toxaphene

87,300

29,000

17,000

158,400

101,500

63,000

798,500

24,000

8,200

14,000

25,700

1,300

1,072,300

14,500

32,200

19,200

4,100

4,600

44,000

90,500

2,900

12,560

126,000

374,000

98,200

1,028,500

7,700

18,900

32,700

34,316

1,564

2,519,882

9,291

24,619

21,640

4,575

5,602

46,982

160,826

9,871

900

213,982

453,500

75,156

2,450,607

Organic Phosphates

Azodrin

Bidrin

Cygon

Diazinon

Disyston

Dylox

Guthion

Malathion

Parathion

Phosdrin

Phosphamidon

Systox

Thimet

Delnav

DEF

2,086,790

10,400

11,100

10,100

8,200

32,000

120,900

78,800

112,000

50,700

200

300

15,500

5,300

2,000

2,996,760

21,800

2,800

8,500

16,700

5,500

98,600

32,200

100,100

292,700

147,000

4,500

2,100

39,400

1,400

58,500

6,092,613

528,744

16,488

24,559

17,600

31,707

65,462

22,445

119,524

680,538

63,150

8,782

3,000

54,660

6,257

166,150

463,400

862,000

1,815,338

Carbamates

IPC m

Maneb

Sevin

922

480

22,100

19,700

1,500

5,000

11,240

22,200

1,406

2,160

1,575

54,774

43,200

Other pesticides including herbicides

950,140

Total

3,543,530

39,940

1,220,400

5,119,100

59,915

2,241,800

10,209,666

September- October, 1968

Page 16

4000

3000

2000

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV

DEC

A'IZON

A

I967

6000

5000

CHLORINAT; D HY

ROCA

ORGANIC P

OSPH

ES-

BONS - --

/

1000

Frequency of application by commercial applicators.

Chart No. I

Table 2.

Acreages of Cotton, Vegetables and Citrus in Arizona by

Years

The striking feature of Table 3 is the increase in quantity of chlorinated hydrocarbons and organic phosphates.

The increase in chlorinated hydrocarbons was 192 per cent between

1965 and 1967, Table 4.

The organic phosphates increased even more, 291 per cent, between 1965 and 1967.

Breaking the increase up by county shows distribution of pesticide increases. The largest proportion of increase in usage of chlorinated hydrocarbons occurred in Maricopa, Yuma and the other eight counties with Cochise having the smallest. In terms of organic phosphates, major increase again was in Maricopa, Yuma and the other eight counties with Cochise county having the smallest relative increase.

County

Niaricopa

Pinal

Yunta

Cochise

Pima

Graham

Other 8

Counties

Totals

By County

289,940

148,585

135,045

30,386

24,935

24,090

16,994

669,975

1965 1966

¶ of Total

By County

% of Total

43.3

c):).-.)

20.2

4.5

3.7

3.6

2.5

100.0

261,260

118,900

137,440

20,267

19,450

20,880

18,113

596,310

43.8

19.9

23.1

3.4

3.3

3.5

3.0

100.0

By County

258,820

115,870

126,805

19,054

20,020

18,500

17,016

576,085

/967

% of Total

44.9

20.1

22.0

3.3

3.5

3.2

3.0

100.0

Table 3.

Use of Pesticides in Arizona By Counties Based on Acre

-

ages in Table 2

Increases in pesticide applications in the recent past leads to speculation about future applications.

Are recent increases an indication of increas-

County ing trend in materials applied?

Pesticide application depends on type of pest, size of populations, and degree of control sought. When pest popu-

Maricopa lations are small, they can be controlled by less pesticide material.

Pinal

Populations of pests are related to

Yuma weather conditions, previous populations and the degree of control achieved.

Cochise

Thus, the amount of pesti-

Puna cide appears to be cyclic in nature.

Graham

1965

463,000

422,000

94,000

77,000

75,000

Chlorinated Hydrocarbons

Lbs. of Technical Material

1966 1967

904,000 1,313,000 2,736,000

596,000 1,225,000

692,000

1,340,000

102,000

99,000

105,000

201,000

213,000

195,000

Organic Phosphates

Lbs. of Technical Material

1965

201,000

103,000

94,000

21,000

17,000

17,000

1966

378,000

712,000

199,000

29,000

28,000

30,000

1967

815,000

365,000

400,000

60,000

64,000

58,000

Page 17

Other 8

(Turn to page 23)

Counties

Progressive Agriculture

Totals

52,000 90,000 183,000

2,087,000

2,997,000

6,093,000

12,000

465,000

26,000

54,000

862,000 1,816,000

In Arizona and Other Nestern States

.

.

.

Budgets for Livestock Ranches

by William E. Martin'

As participants in a western regional research project entitled "Economic Analysis of Range and Ranch Management Decisions on Western Livestock Ranches," agricultural economists from the 11 Western states plus Texas and Hawaii have developed a set of consistent budgets for cattle ranches for almost all areas in the region.

The budgets are stratified by ranch size within each subarea.

They are consistent across all subareas in that the researchers used standardized methods in the development of the budget material and present the budgets in a standardized fashion.

Thus, for the first time,

it will be

possible to make detailed comparisons of the organizations, costs and returns among livestock producing areas throughout the entire Western region.

The number of separate ranch budgets will total several hundred.

California alone has described 72 representative ranches distributed among eight ranching areas.

Since each detailed description requires 12 pages of tables plus several pages of text, it obviously will be impractical to publish the complete set.

The complete set will be available, however, in the library of the University of Nevada at Reno by the end of this summer.

1.

Arizona ranching areas analyzed are shown in Figure

Certain areas of the state were excluded as not being

within the scope of the project:

the Grand Canyon

National Park and the Grand Canyon National Monument, the adjoining Indian reservations, the Hopi and

Navajo Indian Reservations of northeastern Arizona, the

Apache and San Carlos Indian Reservations, the Papago

Indian Reservation and the adjoining Williams Bombing

Range, and the metropolitan and cropped areas of central

Arizona. Two areas of the state, Mohave County south of the Colorado River and those portions of Navajo and

Apache Counties south of the Indian reservations and north of the \logollon Plateau, were omitted for lack of sufficient data.

The remainder of the state was divided into six ranching areas selected on the basis of homogeneity of land characteristics and type of operation.

Ranch income summaries are presented for 21 representative Arizona operations in Table 1.

The summaries are classified by approximate ranch size in the column

* Professor of Agricultural Economics headings as well as by exact January inventory in the stub.

The exact sizes were selected as representing modal sized units in each area.

Three measures of income are shown. They are net cash income, net ranch income, and net return to capital and management.

Net cash income is defined as total receipts minus cash expenses.

Noncash expenses such as depreciation and interest on investment are not consid-

WESTERN

DESERT ,

No Data

J

ARIZONA STRIP

Ranching Areas

Excluded Areas

CENTRAL

PLATEAU

CENTRAL

MOUNTAIN

Figure 1.

Ranching Areas in Arizona.

September -October,

1968

SOUTHERN

DESERT

SOUTHEASTERN

/

DESERT

Page 18

Table 1.

Arizona Cattle Ranch Income Summaries.

Area and Item

Less

Than

100

100 -199

Approximate Ranch Size in Animal Units

200 -299

300 -399

400 -499

Western Desert Without Stocker Steersa

January Inventory ( Animal Units )

Net Cash Income ( $ )

Net Ranch Income ( $ )

Return to Capital & Management ( $ )

% Return to Capital & Management

Western Desert With Stocker Steersa

January Inventory ( Animal Units )

Net Cash Income ( $ )

Net Ranch Income ( $ )

Return to Capital & Management ( $ )

% Return to Capital & Management

Southern Desert

January Inventory ( Animal Units )

Net Cash Income ( $ )

Net Ranch Income ( $ )

Return to Capital & Management ( $ )

% Return to Capital & Management

Southeastern Desert

January Inventory ( Animal Units )

Net Cash Income ( $ )

Net Ranch Income ( $ )

Return to Capital & Management ( $ )

% Return to Capital & Management

Central Mountain

January Inventory ( Animal Units )

Net Cash Income ( $ )

Net Ranch Income ( $ )

Return to Capital & Management ( $ )

% Return to Capital & Management

Central Plateau

January Inventory ( Animal Units )

Net Cash Income ( $ )

Net Ranch Income ( $ )

Return to Capital & Management ($ )

% Return to Capital & Management

Arizona Strip

January Inventory ( Animal Units )

Net Cash Income ( $ )

Net Ranch Income ( $ )

Return to Capital & Management ( $ )

% Return to Capital & Management

75

2,113

1,387

-1,113

34

617

-254

-2,756

170

4,340

2,489

-11

170

9,545

7,351

4,851

4.0

100

2,351

743

-3,007

110

3,104

1,938

-3,062

250

6,960

4,333

-667

250

14,294

11,142

6,142

3.9

200

6,603

4,664

-336

200

6,336

3,976

-1,024

200

7,008

5,417

417

0.2

245

6,893

4,946

-54

210

7,784

5,522

522

0.3

300

7,583

4,571

-429

350

9,531

6,734

1,734

0.6

337

11,169

8,315

3,315

1.5

480

15,070

12,018

7,018

2.4

450

10,590

6,388

1,388

0.5

450

23,713

18,573

13,573

5.2

450

13,308

9,477

4,477

2.0

More

Than

499

700

22,846

16,272

11,272

2.4

a Stocker steers may be run on the average in one year out of four.

ered.

Net ranch income is equal to net cash income less noncash expenses except for a charge for the owner operator's own labor and a return to fixed capital and management.

Net return to capital and management is net ranch income less the charge for the owner -operator's labor.

Owner- operator labor has been valued at $5,000 where the job is considered as full time.

Also shown in

Table 1 is the percentage that the return to capital and management is of the value of the fixed investment.

Returns appear low for all areas and sizes budgeted.

Looking only at cash flow, the income range is a positive

$617 for the 34 AU ranch in the Strip area to $22,846 for

the 700 AU ranch in the Southern Desert area with

$23,713 for the largest ranch in the Western Desert area when stocker steers are pastured.

However, when noncash costs are included and net

Page 19

Progressive Agriculture ranch income is computed, the range is reduced to a negative $254 for the smallest ranch size in the Strip area to a positive $16,272 for the largest unit in the Southern Desert area.

Even the latter income returned only 2.4 percent to capital and management on the fixed investment. Note that a net ranch income of $18,573 with a return to fixed capital and management of 5.2 percent was obtained from the largest size in the Western Desert area in years when stocker steers were pastured; however, because of a lack of regular precipitation in this area, it is possible to run steers on this range only once every four years on the average. A weighted average return would be about 1.7

percent per year for the Western Desert area.

Economies of size are evidenced within all areas.

A limited number of the complete budget materials for Arizona are available upon request to the author at the Department of Agricultural Economics, The University of Arizona.

1

Ramon W. Sammons, left, farm management specialist with Cooperative Extension

Service of UA, discusses new farm management methods with Ross Bryce of Pima.

Bryce says taking the new farm management course money.

taught by Sammons saved him

Without Knowing It

.

.

.

Growers Can Go Broke

by Clay Napier*

"I saved $3,000.

spend that much trading in for a new tractor.

I

I had planned to didn't because my cost analysis showed that I could come closer to justifying

a new pickup

truck."

That was farmer Ross Bryce of

Pima, Graham County, talking.

He was responding to a writer's question as to whether he received any concrete benefit from the farm management classes conducted around the state by the University of Arizona

Cooperative Extension Service.

Bryce is typical of that new breed of Arizona farmer who has learned that time spent in the classroom makes money just as surely as harvesting the crop.

A major factor in this picture is the computer.

It has come down from the laboratory to the farm at a time when more farms reportedly fail because of poor management than lack of knowing how to grow the crop.

Along with the computer has come a new language, including such phrases as "electronic data processing," "E -MAP," "computerized management," and "linear programming."

This trend has progressed so far that the average city man no longer understands much of what the farmer says.

The new language of the soil has gotten a swift boost from Extension, which moved into the computerized farm management field to help farmers meet the challenge. The response to the special classes conducted in various sections of Arizona by Dr.

Ramon W. Sammons, farm management specialist, has been phenomenal.

Here's what some other Arizona agriculturists say about the classes:

Pima County rancher John W.

King "I've learned more practical, useful knowledge about farm management in these six sessions at the Uni-

\'el city of Arizona than I had learned in all of my prior training."

Fertilizer

firm manager Ed J.

Schur of Marana

"This training is a big asset to me in helping other farmers make management decisions.

I know one man who replaced

$25,000 in hand labor costs with $7,000 worth of chemicals such as weed killers.

Proper management records can isolate situations like using $12 for chemicals to replace $40 for weed chopping."

»

Max Green, who grows cotton, sugar beets, alfalfa and grain sorghum near Safford

"I didn't really know how many hours I was putting in on my tractors until I took the farm records course.

I learned that my bigger, more powerful tractor was saving me money in spite of the fact it was using more fuel.

A machinery time study I made as part of the course showed me how much work each tractor ought to do."

Eden farmer Bob Colvin

-

"If every farmer had exact records they could have better management and make more money.

Otherwise, a farmer can be going broke and not know it."

Scott Pace of Solomon, speaking for himself and his wife, both of whom took the training

"We've been shocked at what we found at our own farm doing homework for this course.

We got a lot out of it."

Walter Foote of Safford

-

"I've enjoyed the training, and I've learned plenty in it. The most important thing

* Information Specialist -News,

Cooperative Extension Service.

September- October, 1968

Page 20

In picture left, Sammons, from left, takes the farm records from Bob Colvin of

Eden, right.

Mrs. Colvin center, who knows the farm records works with her husband in converting from the old method of keeping farm records to the management procedures.

John computerized farm

In picture below

Sears, Graham County Agricultural

Agent in charge in talking to Bob Colvin suggests giving up the "shirt pocket method of management" and adopt computer methods which include the large hooks on the car hood.

an approximately $12,000 drop in the farmer's cost for the same production the following year.

This was added income in his pockets."

In another situation, near Florence, said Brueck, a hog producer was not making any money on his animals.

The computer ferreted out excessive feed costs.

The farmer then bought a custom mixed feed which cost $30 a ton less than the feed he had been buying.

The farmer also changed male hogs, is that it made me take a closer look at my farm operation and analyze it."

Pete

Brauley, manager of the

Ellsworth Ranch in Graham County

"I've learned much useful information in this course.

Getting deep into the homework increased my interest in the course."

Ted Larson of Solomon

"This linear programming will, I think, make or break us farmers in the future."

Dr.

George E.

Hull, Extension

Service director, noted that Extension initiated the management program because the subject is of great interest and concern among Arizona farmers.

"A farmer must be a good manager to survive these days," said Hull.

Pima County Agent James F. Armstrong added, "This is

an area in

which we need more intensification.

We're keeping the training practical so that farmers can actually use it."

John L.

Sears, county agent in charge in Graham County, summed up the situation in these words : "One of the big benefits of this is that it spreads the idea that there is a precise and orderly way to run a farm

and that it pays off in dollars and

cents."

"The computer can tell how much of which crop to grow for maximum profits.

It can give all of the alternatives available to the farmer at the speed of lightning," said Sammons.

David A. Brueck, Extension farm records specialist and one of the pioneers in the farm computer field, tells

the experience a Casa Grande

of farmer had with the program after otherwise failing to figure out on his

Page 21

Progressive Agriculture taiga own why his cotton profits were so low.

Fed a solid diet of information, the computer quickly isolated water costs as excessive.

Further checking revealed that his natural gas pumping units, which supplied water for more than 400 feet of irrigation, were faulty and using more fuel than the average.

In the blink of an eye, the computer had found the culprits.

"As a result of pinpointing the problem, the farmer was able to negotiate with the land- owners, and they agreed

to replace his pumping units and

lower the cost of his lease," said

Brueck. "He was a good farmer and the land- owners wanted to work with him to keep him on their farm."

"The result," added Brueck, "was bringing in new breeding stock.

Consequently, he received a profit of about $4 per hog on the 2,000 -headper -year operation.

Arizona's Extension farm computer program, which has won recognition throughout the nation, was born in

Pinal County. Things began to happen after three farmers there approached

County Agent Charles E. "Chuck"

Robertson on the subject back in 1958.

The farmers wondered whether their records could be processed by the computer to help them in making farm management decisions.

Robertson reckoned they could and proceeded to lay the groundwork for the program, which caught on and continues to grow in popularity among the state's farmers and ranchers.

Tillage

Systems

.

3500

SAFFORD

MARANA

CRC

3413 3393

(from page 3)

Time and energy inputs were measured for each of the five tillage systems. ( See Table 1) List -only, shallow chisel -list, and medium chisel -list treatments required 1/4 to 1/i the energy input of the "conventional" system. The energy inputs reflect the amount of soil movement and the number of passes.

The time inputs reflect the number of separate operations within the pre -plant system.

From a cost - return standpoint all the chisel list treatments show less cost and a greater net return than the

"conventional" system.

An estimate of the difference in costs of these systems can be based on their energy requirements. The cost of "conventional" pre -plant land preparation for Arizona in 1967 was estimated at $17.00 per acre.

( "Arizona

Agriculture, 1968 ") Tests showed that the "conventional" system required

44.5 HP- HRS /AC.

( One HP -HR is the quantity of work performed when one horsepower is used for one hour )

From:

$17 /Ac

$0.382 /HP -HRS,

44.5 HP- HRS /Ac each HP -HR of energy costs 38.2(' for land preparation operations.

Based on energy requirements, shallow and medium chisel -list costs project as:

Shallow chisel -list :

11.5 HP -HRS/

AC x 38.2(1HP -PR = $4.39/AC.

3000

2500

2000

2669

2798 a p

J

F-

W z

J z

O

H en

J

2962

2986

3011

3

_

N

V~)

J

J

W

N

V

0

V c~!)

J

J

W en

V

.-.

W

`' tn

J

J

W en v

2858

2932

3058

3029

2941

<

J

ZO

I-

Z z

OU

J

J

O

1-

N

J

J

ú

^

3 o

..

0

1-

J

J

U

., w

0 ci)

J

W

N

U

2947

Q

Z z

W z

Ú

W

2

Ñ_

J w

N

U

-

..

Q.

w w

0

Ñ

J

1

W tI)

U

1500

2

3

4

5

2 3

4

5

A

( I)

B

C

(4)

(5)

-

TILLAGE TREATMENTS

Figure 1.

The bar chart shows the average yield over a three year period for each treatment at the three experimental farms. See text for description of treatments.

Medium chisel -list:

13.3 HP -HRS/

AC x 38.20 /HP -HR = $5.08 /AC.

Using one of the chisel -list systems shows potential savings of nearly

$12.00 per acre, or about $3,000 on a

250 -acre cotton allotment.

This estimate of possible savings with one of the chisel -list systems assumes that the cost of energy is related to fuel use, and that the total cost includes labor and the annual use of the tractor and the tillage machinery. The reduced investment in machinery provides an offset for the higher unit -cost related to reduced annual hours of tractor use in producing an overall operating cost for this cost projection.

Actual costs and savings would depend upon the size of the farm, annual use of equipment, and other factors, as in any machine selection problem.

summary.

The chisel -list systems are not approved for use with cotton after cotton in the current Pink Bollworm control program. They may be used in any other cropping program.

Yield data and cost projections indicate that these alternatives in pre plant tillage systems could provide a means for cost reduction without a sacrifice in yield.

Treatment Operation HP -HR per Acre

1

2

3

4

5

Conventional

List Only

Chisel -List

Chisel -List

Chisel &

Chisel -List

44.5

11.2

11.5

13.3

32.1

Table 1

Percent of

Conventional

Projected Cost

Time Input

Dollars per Acre

Minutes per Acre

100.0

25.2

25.8

29.9

72.1

$17.00

4.28

4.39

5.08

12.28

84

18

18

22

51

Theoretical

Capacity

AC /HR

.7

3.3

3.3

2.7

1.2

** The tractor used (92 PTO -HP, Nebraska Tractor Test) was ballasted to a gross weight of approximately 11,000 lbs.

The drawbar

The equipment used con sisted of a 2 -row rotary stalk cutter; a 3- bottom, 16 -inch, 2 -way plow; a 15 ft. tandem disc; equipment.

a 12 ft. float; and 4 -row chisel -list

Pestcide

Table 4.

Changes in Pesticide Application From 1965 to 1966 and

1967

Use

In

Arizona

County

Chlorinated Hydrocarbons

% Change cc Change

1966

1967

Organic Phosphates

Change

1966

% Change

1967

(from page 17)

Maricopa

Final

Yuma

Cochise

Pima

Graham

Other 8 Counties

Totals

+ 45

+ 29

+ 64

+

9

+ 29

+ 40

+ 73

+ 44

+ 203

+ 165

+ 218

+ 114

+ 177

+ 160

-f- 252

+ 192

-r

88

+

67

+ 112

+

38

+

65

+ 76

+ 117

+

85

+ 305

+ 254

+ 326

+ 186

+ 276

+ 241

+ 350

+ 291

Data in the tables cannot be interpreted as an indication of simple trends.

Pesticides used in Arizona can be evaluated in terms of value as well as quantity applied. When quantities of ea c h material are multiplied by a typical price, the value of material is obtained.

These values for chlorinated hydrocarbons, organic phosphates, carbamates and other materials are summarized in Table 5.

Organic phosphates dominate the picture from a value point of view.

Azodrin, parathion, malathion and cygon are the largest value segments in this category.

Chlorinated hydrocarbons rank second in value, with

DDT being the major value component.

Other pesticides rank third because of the value of treflan, dalapon, MSMA diuron.

Timing of the application of major pesticides is of concern.

For example, it is thought that hay with minimum pesticide content can be obtained during the first few months of the year.

Frequency of applications of materials was obtained from records filled out by custom applicators.

These records contained the material applied, location of application, date and other information. Chart 1 shows the frequency of pesticide application

by material types by month, with

August being the highest month. Rise in application begins

in May and

reaches a low level by November. Although application frequency data were obtained only on custom applicators, it appears safe to assume that other applications, i.e., individual owners parallels these figures.

It is apparent that the estimated value of these pesticides in Arizona represents about two per cent of gross value of agricultural production.

Page 23

Progressive Agriculture

Table 5.

Value of Pesticide Used in Arizona,

1967

Chlorinated Hydrocarbons

Organic Phosphates

Carbamates

Other

Total

$ 3,594,004

4,350,729

67,878

2,387,635

$10,400,246

Cattle Auction

a lot of effort to organize a thing

like this.

It's the small rancher like myself who really benefit."

Jim Armer, assistant vice president of livestock loans at First National

Bank of Arizona told Dr. C. Curtis

Cable, marketing specialist with the

Cooperative Extension Service at the

U of A ( left to right respectively in photo 5th col., top )

"this sale had to come because the cattle industry is becoming more sophisticated.

Expenses must be cut. The buyers must be able to come to one place and buy all the cattle he needs to fill his orders

at one time; at one place. He can

no longer afford more than one trip these days. The buyers as well as the cattlemen need a fair shake in the market."

Cable has been working with Pat

Gray and between them will prepare a summary of all three sales for the cattlemen.

"I like the sale well. It's great for the small fellow. Generally, I'd have

to send my cattle in with another

rancher

( pooling arrangement ) in order to make a sale. That kind of sale sure makes a small operator big.

I sell about 25 head a year which doesn't even make a truck load. But

(from page 4) this sale gives us all an even break," said

Billy

Garlinghouse

( 5th col., middle)

.

Art Ohlfest, manager of First National Bank of Arizona in Globe ( 5th col., bottom) said "we thought the sale was great.

I've talked to many cattlemen about the sale and they all like it seemed pleased with the results.

It also provides advantages to the buyers who can see exactly what he's going to get. He can put a full load together at one place which reduces his total operating costs and he saves considerable time by not going around to many places."

In general, cattlemen feel it an overall success. Oh, there are problems, yet.

But, each year they face up to the problems as soon as they are recognized and initiate the changes.

They all agree that it's about the best thing to happen to Gila county cow -calf operators ... the prices they received have been better, which is welcome

...

large and small ranchers, alike, benefit by working together to market their cattle; sorting them; and

"having more than one buyer there to stimulate competition."

And, next year? Naturally, an even better sale.

UA Press

Release 2 Aggie Books

Livestock Poisoning Plants

of

Arizona by Erwin NI. Schmutz,

J

Barry N. Freeman and Raymond

E. Reed. University of Arizona

Press. $6.00.

Identification of plants which may be harmful to grazing animals is the feature of the drawings and descriptions in this new release.

Rare or suspected poisonous plants and cultivated plants are identified by common and scientific name. The extent and nature of their poisoning effect are summarized in this easy to use handbook type of reference for farmers, ranchers, veterinarians, gardeners, technicians, teachers, and students.

Because of its simple layout it is possible to find and identify the poisonous plant in minutes.

Nearly 3 hundred varieties are listed and described giving growth habits and distribution, symptoms, recommended treatment, recommended livestock and range management, methods of plant eradication and poisonous principles and condition of poisoning.

Spider

Mites

of Southwestern

United States and a Revision of

the

Family Tetranychidae by

Donald M. Tuttle and Edward

W. Baker. University of Arizona

Press. $7.50.

The spider mites have been attracting increasing interest throughout the world and the senior author has made extensive collections in Arizona.

He has been finding new species and genera in Arizona. As a result the authors have had an opportunity to re- evaluate the systematics of the family and by using claw and empodial and striation patterns have changed somewhat the relationships set up by earlier workers.

Most genera and subgenera have been kept, although at times changed in rank.

Both books are available in bookstores or from the University of Arizona Press.

SPIDER MITES of

SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES and a revision of the family

TETRANYCHIDAE

DONALD M. TUTTLE &

EDWARD W. BAKER

PROGRESSIVE

AGRICULTURE

IN

ARIZONA

LIVESTOCK- POISONING

PLANTS OF ARIZONA

ERVIN M. SCHMUTZ

BARRY N. FREEMAN

RAYMOND E. ACED

Official Publication of the

College of Agriculture and

School of Home Economics

The University of Arizona

9:4A.6.621

Dean

Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement