ittniurrsitu of Arizona College of Agriculture MAJOR SALT RIVER VALLEY

ittniurrsitu of Arizona College of Agriculture MAJOR SALT RIVER VALLEY

Bulletin No. 146

March, 1934

ittniurrsitu of Arizona

College of Agriculture

Agricultural Experiment Station

PRODUCTION COSTS AND RETURNS FROM

MAJOR SALT RIVER VALLEY

FIELD CROPS, 1928- 1930

BY

R. L. MATLOCK AND S. P. CLARK

PUBLISHED BY

3liniuruifg uf Arizona

TUCSON, ARIZONA

ORGANIZATION

BOARD OF REGENTS

HIS EXCELLENCY, B. B. MOEUR, M.D., Governor (Ex-officio)

HON. HERMAN E. HENDRIX, Ph.D., State Supt. of Public Instruction (Ex-officio)

Appointed Members

HON. ROBERT E. TALLY, B.S., M.E., President

HON. SAMUEL L. PATTEE

HON. FRANKLIN J. CRIDER, M.S., Vice -President

HON. THEODORA MARSH

HON. HENRY L. McCLUSKEY, Secretary

HON. W. O. SWEEK, M.D

HON. EVERETT E. ELLINWOOD, LL.B

HON. HALBERT W. MILLER, B.S. in Agr

HOMER L. SHANTZ, Ph.D., Sc.D

Phoenix

Phoenix

Jerome

Tucson

Superior

Nogales

Phoenix

Phoenix

Phoenix

Tucson

President of the University

PAUL S. BURGESS, Ph.D

EXPERIMENT STATION STAFF

Director and Dean

AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTRY AND SOILS DEPARTMENT

WILLIAM T. McGEORGE, M.S

*JAMES F. BREAZEALE, B.S

THEOPHIL F. BUEHRER, Ph.D

HOWARD V. SMITH, M.S

ROBERT A. GREENE, Ph.D

E. OSBORN FOSTER, M.S

Agricultural Chemist

Biochemist

Physical Chemist

Assistant Agricultural Chemist

Assistant Agricultural Chemist

Assistant Agricultural Chemist (Phoenix)

AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (Irrigation)

GEORGE E. P. SMITH, C.E., D.Eng

HAROLD C. SCHWALEN, B.S. in M.E., M.S. in C.E

WILLIAM A. STEENBERGEN, B.S. in C.E

Agricultural Engineer

Associate Agricultural Engineer

Assistant Agricultural Engineer

AGRONOMY DEPARTMENT

RALPH S. HAWKINS, Ph.D

IAN A. BRIGGS, M.S

ROBERT L. MATLOCK, Ph.D

*ARTHUR T. BARTEL, M.S

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT

ERNEST B. STANLEY, M.S

EVERETT L. SCOTT, Ph.D

Agronomist

Associate Agronomist

Assistant Agronomist

Junior Agronomist

Animal Husbandman

Associate Animal Husbandman

BOTANY DEPARTMENT

JOHN J. THORNBER, M.A

DAIRY HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT

WALTER S. CUNNINGHAM, M.S

RICHARD N. DAVIS, M.S

HUMAN NUTRITION DEPARTMENT

MARGARET CAMMACK SMITH, Ph.D

GLADYS HARTLEY ROEHM, Ph.D

EDITH LANTZ, M.S

Botanist

.Dairy Husbandman

Associate Dairy Husbandman

ENTOMOLOGY AND ECONOMIC ZOOLOGY DEPARTMENT

CHARLES T. VORHIES, Ph.D

ELMER D. BALL, Ph.D

tWALTER P. TAYLOR, Ph.D

LAWRENCE P. WEHRLE, Ph.D

HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT

ALLEN F. KINNISON, 141.5

DAVID W. ALBERT, M.S

MALCOLM F. WHARTON, M S

ALTON H. FINCH, Ph.D

ROBERT H. H1LGEMAN, B.S

!KARL HARRIS, M.S

Entomologist

Economic Zoologist

Senior Research Biologist

........

Assistant Entomologist

Horticulturist

Associate Horticulturist (Tempe)

Assistant Horticulturist

Assistant Horticulturist

Assistant Horticulturist (Tempe)

Assistant Irrigation Engineer (Phoenix)

Nutrition Chemist

Associate Nutrition Chemist

Assistant Nutrition Chemist

PLANT BREEDING DEPARTMENT

WALKER E. BRYAN, M.S

ELIAS H. PRESSLEY, M.S

PLANT PATHOLOGY DEPARTMENT

JAMES G. BROWN, Ph.D

RUBERT B, STREETS, Ph.D

MILTON M. EVANS, M.S

...

Plant Breeder

_..- Associate Plant Breeder

Plant Pathologist

...Associate Plant Pathologist

Research Assistant in Plant Pathology

POULTRY HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT

HARRY EMBLETON, B.S

HUBERT B. HINDS, MS

RANGE ECOLOGY DEPARTMENT

WILLIAM G. McGINNIES, Ph.D

ANDREW A. NICHOL, B.S

LAURENCE D. LOVE, M.S

Poultry Husbandman

Assistant Poultry Husbandman

Range Ecologist

Assistant Range Ecologist

Research Assistant in Range Ecology tin cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey.

¡lu cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Engineering.

*In cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Plant Industry.

CONTENTS

Introduction

Pima cotton

The 1929 Pima crop

Pima in 1930

Three -year averages

Upland cotton

The 1929 crop

The 1930 crop

Three -year averages

Alfalfa

The 1929 crop

Pasturing alfalfa

The 1930 crop

Three -year averages

Wheat

The 1929 crop

The 1930 crop

Three -year averages

The crop sequence factor in wheat costs

Barley _

Hegari sorghum for grain

Hegari sorghum for silage

General comparisons between crops

Conclusions

-General summary

Acknowledgment

39

42

45

33

34

34

37

47

54

55

58

18

20

20

24

25

29

30

31

PAGE

3

7

10

13.

13

15

16

PRODUCTION COSTS AND RETURNS FROM

MAJOR SALT RIVER VALLEY

FIELD CROPS, 1928 -1930

BY

R. L. MATLOCK AND S. P. CLARK*

INTRODUCTION

During periods of rapid and puzzling changes in world economic conditions producers of crops want detailed information concerning costs of production and returns from the major crops grown.

This is especially true of farmers producing a world trade crop like cotton which is the basic crop grown by farmers under the Salt River Valley irrigation project.

-

This publication summarizes data obtained from coöperating farmers concerning crop production costs secured during the years of 1928, 1929, and 1930.

The crops included were upland and Pima cotton, alfalfa, wheat, barley, and Hegari grain sorghum. The data for Hegari were taken both from producers of the crop for grain and for silage.

Barley and Hegari were studied only during the 1930 season.

Detailed data for cotton. alfalfa, and wheat for the season 1928 were published in Arizona Experiment Station Bulletin 139. The revised summaries for that year have been included in this publication in the tables presenting three -year averages.

THE REGION STUDIED

The Salt River Valley comprises a large area of land extending in an east -west direction through the center of Maricopa County in south central Arizona. Approximately 400,000 acres were reported under irrigation in the Valley in 1929.

The Roosevelt

Dam supplemented by three smaller dams impounds water for the project.

Soil and climate combine to provide an excellent environment for the production of such field crops as cotton, alfalfa, sorghums, wheat and barley.

The data in this publication were collected by the junior author, formerly assistant agronomist in the Experiment Station, now a cotton specialist in the service of the Turkish Government. The senior author is responsible for the organization of tabular material, discussions, and interpretations.

3

4

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146

HOW THE DATA WERE SECURED

The data were secured by the route method. The coöperating farmers were visited several times during the year. Visits were timed to occur at the completion of each of the major operations such as seedbed preparation, planting, cultivating, irrigating, and harvesting.

By following this plan details were fresh in the minds of the farmers and reasonably accurate data were obtained.

Coöperating farmers were so located throughout the principal farming districts of the Valley that soil conditions were considered average.

It should be admitted, of course, that men who will coöperate in furnishing such rather detailed data over considerable periods of time are above average in at least their ambitions to succeed as farmers. and the data show their yields were above the general State averages.

RATES USED

Yields per acre were calculated from the farmers' own records and possibly are subject to some errors.

Prices received for crops were actual and subject to no bias. Most of the crops studied are produced and sold mainly as cash crops.

All man labor expended was charged at a flat rate of 30 cents an hour for all three years.

That allowed the farmer current wages for his time as well as for the time of any member of his family.

Contract labor for such work as hoeing and thinning cotton, was charged at the actual cost rate per acre. Attention of the reader is called to the "Man labor" columns in all the detailed farm record tables. A seeming discrepancy appears between farms in amounts of time and costs for labor. In keeping the field records all man labor was recorded in actual hours and minutes, and the exact costs were calculated from the totals for each farm. In the tables, however, man labor time is tabulated only to the nearest quarter hour. Because of that practice the apparent discrepancies occur.

Horse labor costs were calculated at a rate of 10 cents an hour for each horse -hour of operation.

That charge was assumed to cover maintenance, depreciation and interest for the season.

Horse -drawn machinery costs were included with the horse equipment cost and were calculated at 3/ cents for each horse

hour spent. The use of the tractor with its equipment of machinery was charged at the rate of 90 cents an hour, which figure allowed for operation, upkeep, depreciation and interest.

That rate did not allow for the time of the operator.

Since most of the farms studied used a combination of horse and tractor power no attempt was made in the survey to separate and compare relative costs of the two types of power. For some crops comparisons are shown in the tables.

Water costs varied from year to year.

They were calculated from the number of hours run, the head of water used, and the

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS

5 rate charged by the Water Users' Association.

Under the different Salt River Valley irrigation projects various construction charges and special assessments have been made during the past several years. In some instances those levies were postponed or delayed or reduced.

Because of the irregularity and uncertainty of their collection, those costs were not included and the charges are shown only for the water actually delivered to the coöperating farms. Where additional levies were made and collected, those amounts necessarily would have to be subtracted from the indicated net returns for any given farmer.

Costs for seed were figured from amounts used and prices furnished by the coöperators. The charge for taxes was obtained by applying to the assessed valuation the tax rate as given for the different districts by the county assessor.

Harvesting and marketing expenses are discussed later under each particular crop.

NET RETURNS

A rental or interest charge of 8 per cent of the coöperator's estimated valuation of his land was charged against each crop in a previous publication of the 1928 data.

In few, if any, instances did the farmdrs actually pay out that amount of money. Charging such a cost against the crop, therefore, is now believed to have presented an erroneous picture of the situation.

Consider, for example, a farmer who owned his land, valued at

$200 an acre, free of debt.

just as much to produce the crop as he got from its sale.

"On the books" it might be shown that he lost $16 with every acre of crop. There is a remote possibility that he might have profited to the extent of $16 had he had the same $200 invested in some security. But other enterprises were not paying 8 per cent. Actually the farmer did not "pay out" that $16.

Another case might be taken. Suppose a similar grower was shown to have made $10 per acre, exclusive of interest, from a given crop of 100 acres, a total of $1,000. Had the same money in another enterprise earned him $1,600, at 8 per cent, the difference would have been $600.

that $600 difference in cash.

But the farmer did not pay out

It was purely a "book loss." should it be charged to the crop?

Why

It has seemed more logical to the writer to exclude a fixed interest charge against a crop.

farmer for his management.

Let it be assumed that he paid out

The net return, if any, is then

available to pay actual interest or rental charges and, if there remains a balance above those actual costs, to reimburse the

If the net return does not take

care of any actual interest or rental charge the farmer knows he must charge the crop with a net indebtedness.

As a result of this thinking, therefore, no crop is charged with interest.

The differences between gross returns and crop ex-

6

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146 penses are expressed as net returns for capital and management.

With those figures every farmer can make application to his own situation and very soon decide whether his crop enterprise was successful.

1933 COST ESTIMATES

Most kinds of research and experimental data which are affected by economic and weather conditions are made more reliable when extended over a period of several years.

Averages, although poor and not too reliable at best, become much more useable when shifting factors have played over a number of seasons.

The practice of continuing a study over a considerable period of time, however, has a distinct disadvantage.

It delays the date when information secured may be made available to interested persons. Under normal conditions of changing factors unavoidable delays are not highly important.

In the present study, however, radical changes have occurred in costs and prices since the last data were secured early in 1931.

An attempt has been made, therefore, using carefully estimated

1933 figures, to bring the average costs up to date.

Those data are included in Tables 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, 13, 21 and 22 for the major crops of cotton, alfalfa, and wheat.

The farmer can make use of such figures in the following way.

He can calculate his gross returns readily for most crops. A simple subtraction using the 1933 estimates, will then give an approximate figure for his net return for capital and management. He may even make several improvements over the estimates in cases where he has a record of his own actual acre costs such as for water, contract labor, etc. Calculation as to his net returns based on the tabulated outlines then would be much more applicable to his own situation.

FUTURE USE OF DATA

Inasmuch as economic conditions change materially from year to year cost of production data are limited in their usefulness.

An attempt has been made in tabulation of the data in this publication to make it possible for a farmer to adjust the costs to any year.

There are certain factors of production which will hold more or less constant from one year to another. For instance, under a given set of conditions, the amount of man labor and horse or tractor hours required for such field operations as plowing, disking, harrowing, etc., will not change materially. The amounts of time as reported expended on various production operations by the farmer coöperators have been averaged and their total costs figured at the 1928 -1930 rates. The 1933 estimate also is included

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS together with a space in which may be figured the cost of such operations at a given rate for any future year. The calculations for the major crops are shown in Tables 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, 13, 21 and

22. The costs for labor and power then were carried to the tables

(numbers 2, 6, 12 and 22) where all production expense items are listed exclusive of interest charges.

By a small amount of adjusting to his own known costs for various factors a farmer can figure his net returns for any future year. Such a set -up should make this study of more future value to Salt River Valley farmers than it would have been if confined only to costs and returns for the years studied. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that such calculations are averages only and that in all cases where possible they should be adjusted to actual costs known to the individual farmer.

PIMA, LONG STAPLE COTTON

The long staple character of Egyptian types of cotton long ago created a demand for them for certain manufactured products.

Until about twenty years ago after the United States Department of Agriculture had developed an American- Egyptian strain named "Yuma" practically all cotton of this type was imported from Egypt. Further selection and experimentation by the same agency brought out a new variety which was called "Pima." It proved to be superior to the old Yuma variety which it soon supplanted.

Until 1922 Pima was practically the only cotton grown in the Salt River Valley, where its production had become centered.

The high prices paid for Pima cotton in the years immediately following the World War brought its production to a great peak in 1920.

The general financial depression of 1921 and the previous high prices for Pima, coupled with the almost overnight change by the tire manufacturers from the old type fabric tires to the new balloon type, had much to do with the shift to short staple cotton by Salt River Valley growers. A resulting drastic decline in

Pima prices caused a sharp reduction in the acreage of Pima in

1921. The continued low price for the 1921 crop of Pima together with its lower yield in relation to short staple, upland cotton, brought about the planting of a few thousand acres of short staple varieties in the Salt River Valley in 1922.

With a price relationship still more unfavorable to Pima in

1922 -23 there followed a further reduction in Pima acreage and a sharp increase in the acreage of short staple varieties. That shift away from Pima placed it second in acreage to upland cotton in the Salt River Valley and, as

Figure 1 shows, Pima cotton has never since regained first place. The Figure shows that the price relationship since 1923 has been much more favorable to Pima growers.

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146

1B¢

tZ

73

At

UPLAND

RGRfRC.0

a/C6

"

,BQ.-

Ú

/fra2.

.G3'ó

1?dl

\,

\

1

l'I

ILL

\'

I

8

82.7

74.7

-Z0_z k

68,5 B/

_io_

//\

-

I

`.i

!

1 o

*..4£4

/

/ f

14

21

69

82

/80 7/

7?

48

40 z8

44 So

6,24 43[6

8

.fi

A

ñ

á

o:

Á á a e `.

o.

o.

A.

si

40

::v`1S1i

,/á

frs

2/.a,Erf_

0

Fig. 1.- Division of cotton acreage in the Salt River Valley between Pima

(American- Egyptian) and upland varieties during the period from 1917 to 1933, inclusive, together with average prices at Phoenix, Arizona, for the lint from the respective types.

Since 1923 the average price of Pima has ranged from 1.76 to

2.4 times the average price of upland cotton at Phoenix, Arizona.

TIME AND COST OF GROWING COTTON

It was mentioned in the introductory section of this publication that certain physical factors in crop production do not vary significantly from one year to another.

Such factors are the ones which enter into growing a crop.

Unless a cotton farmer keeps accurate labor records it is difficult for him to calculate with any high degree of accuracy the costs incurred in bringing his crop up to harvest time.

Harvesting costs with cotton are rather easily determined.

From labor records kept during the present study, supplement-

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS

9 ed with data from other surveys in the Salt River Valley, Table

1 was compiled to indicate the average amount of time and the cost of the various operations in growing cotton.

Table 1.- Average Time and Cost of Operations in Bringing Cotton to Harvest.

Salt River Valley, Arizona, 1928 -30.

Operations

Cutting stalks

Plowing

Harrowing

Disking

Floating

Bordering

Furrowing

Planting

Cultipacking

Covering (after planting dry)

Cultivating

Ditch up -keep

Irrigating

Total

Average cost at 1928 -30 rate:

30e per man hour

10e per horse hour

90e per tractor hour

Cost at 1933 rate:

12 %e per man hour

5

80 c per horse hour c per tractor hour

Cost for any year: e per man hour e per horse hour e per tractor hour

1

1

3

1

3/4

1

1

3/4

3/4

6 k

11/

6%

Man

Horse farming

Hours required per acre

Tractor farming

Horse

Man

Tractor

21/4

12

4

5

41/4

21/4

4

2

21íz

232,

191

2

1/2

13/4

1/2

1

114

6 1/2

1íe

3/4

3/4

1/2

1/2

1/2

1/z

%

13/4

2

Î

3/4

1/4

Ife

1/z

1/a

1

1/2

Iii

26

62/

151/2 8

$7.80

$3.25

$6.25

$3.1.2

$4.65

$1.94

$7.20

$6.40

It is realized that the table will not fit accurately all conditions under which Pima and upland cotton are grown in the Valley.

Perhaps relatively few farmers perform all the operations listed.

Still others vary the number of cultivations or irrigations between Pima and upland cotton. With individual adjustments, however, the table will serve as a guide to help the farmer calculate his growing costs.

As is done in the following section on upland cotton, the figures for man labor and power in Table 1 have been used to calculate the total costs of producing cotton in the Salt River Valley.

Those costs for Pima cotton, as calculated for 1928 -30 and estimated for 1933, are presented in Table 2.

In Table 2 there is shown to have been a saving of about $4.50

per acre for tractor operated farms as compared with those using horses for power. That saving was all due to the differences in labor, power, and machinery and may have been more apparent than actual as it may have been due mainly to the differences in methods of calculating machinery costs.

It is noticeable how the apparent 1928 -30 tractor advantage had disappeared as shown

10

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146 in the 1933 estimated costs.

Costs for man labor and horse labor were greatly reduced by 1933 while prices of oil and gasoline for the tractor were not greatly changed.

It is clearly evident from Table 2 that picking, ginning, and miscellaneous harvesting and marketing costs account for well over half of the total costs of producing Pima cotton. A further discussion of the various cost items will be found under a later section in which all crops are compared.

Table 2.- Average Cost per Acre of Producing Pima, Long Staple Cotton.

Salt River Valley, Arizona.

Expense items

Man labor*

Power*

Machinery

Water

Seed

Hoe and thin...- - -. -

Taxes

Picking

Supervision and hauling

Ginning

Bag -ties and insurance

Fumigation

Total

1928 -30

Average

$7.80

6.25

2.35

5.23

1.01

2.86

4.31

27.59

1.73

11.30

1.93

.83 **

$73.19

Horse farming

1933

Costs * **

$3.25

3.12

1.76

3.92

.51

1.14

4.31

14.07

Costs for any year

****

.87

8.48

1.16

**

$42.59

1928 -30

Average

Tractor farming

1933

Costs * **

$4.65

7.20

* * * **

5.23

1.01

2.86

4.31

27.59

$1.94

6.40

3.92

.51

1.14

4.31

14.07

1.73

11.30

1.93

.83**

.87

8.48

1.16

**

$68.64

$42.80

Costs for any year

* **

* From Table 1.

** Two -year average, fumigation not required in 1933.

* ** 1933 costs estimated.

" * *" Blank spaces may be used to figure costs for any future year.

* * " ** Machinery charge included with tractor costs.

THE 1929 PIMA CROP

The data for Pima cotton in 1929 were secured from thirty -six fields totalling 1,704 acres. The acre yields of lint were calculated by multiplying the yield of seed cotton from each field by a common ginning percentage figure of 26 per cent.

The picking and ginning charges for Pima in 1929 were $2.50

and 90 cents, respectively, per 100 pounds of seed cotton.

The common practice is to charge the costs of ginning against the value of the seed at the gin, the gin company paying the farmer any balance. Some of the seed may be held by the company for seed, but most of it is used for producing cottonseed oil and its by- products.

Among the minor expense items is an allowance to the grower of 1/2 cent per pound of lint for supervision of pickers, weighing seed cotton in the field, and for hauling it to the gin. Other costs were 1/2 cent for bagging and ties used on the bales and to cover the insurance while the cotton was at the gin, and 1/4 cent per pound of lint for fumigation costs in the pink bollworm control program.

Table 3. -PIMA, LONG STAPLE COTTON: Income, Expenses, and Net Returns per Acre for Capital and Management. Salt River Valley, Arizona, 1929.

GROSS RETURNS

°

P..

m w

¢ d

G

1.4 .9

°

áF

äa

12

27

1

8

34

4

6

14

3

9

20

18

11

22

33

23

36

31

13

7

30

5

29

19

15

21

35

16

24

32

10

28

2

25

26

17

8

25

28

120

90

12

80

10

40

20

40

35

75

190

50

68

45

25

18

40

21

30

91

35

40

46

39

40

40

28

80

15

27

40

74

'

40

47.3

177

130

200

130

205

175

247

275

243

300

273

298

275

320

182

395

357

353

339

364

308

339

350

340

663

500

470

468

412

390

412

380

400

150

180

200

311

Av.

Percent of total expense

33.0

32.2

32.1

32.1

33.0

31.0

32.1

31.0

32.5

38.0

33.0

35.0

30.7

33.0

32.2

32.0

30.0

33.2

32.5

33.0

34.2

33.0

32.2

31.0

32.5

32.0

32.0

32.5c

32 3

34.0

33.0

32.3

34.0

32.3

32.3

33.1

32.7

^ r

ó

$215.48

161.50

159.80

154.44

133.08

132.60

133.08

122.74

132.40

129.69

114.95

113.38

108.75

120.02

104.72

108.75

108.50

110.50

93.86

90.75

85.05

92.19

90.09

95.96

88.00

96.00

60.42

57.53

42.00

68.40

42.90

66.01

54.25

48.75

57.60

64.00

$101.64

m w

$23.30

21.35

20.07

19.98

17.59

16.65

17.59

16.22

17.08

7.6.78

15.24

15.07

14.47

15.54

13.15

14.47

14.94

14.51

10.55

11.74

10.37

12.81

11.66

12.72

11.74

13.66

7.77

7.56

5.55

6.83

5.55

8.75

7.47

6.40

7.68

8.54

$13.23

.+ o

$243.78

182.85

179.87

174.42

150.67

149.25

150.67

138.96

149.48

146.47

130.19

128.45

123.22

135.56

117.87

123.22

123.44

125.01

104.41

102.49

95.42

105.00

101.75

108.68

99.74

109.66

68.19

65.09

48.45

75.23

48.45

74.76

61.72

55.15

65.28

72.54

$114.87

Man labor

..., x

231¡4

111/2

23 ?i4

15

%

121/2

221/a

15

12

183'4

22

161/4

181/2

171,

321/4

113á

18

221/4

323'4

26%

15

20

16%

17%

303'4

321/4

321/4

93'4

18

151/4

27

161/2

281/2

163'4

171/2

27%

281/4

201/2

"

5.25

9.64

3.56

5.42

6.71

9.84

8.00

4.50

6.01

5.00

5.26

9.19

9.65

9.65

2.96

5.37

4.56

8.13

4.98

8.58

5.06

5.22

8.20

8.48

$6.98

3.42

6.96

4.58

3.73

6.76

4.48

3.56

5.65

6.69

4.90

5.66

$6.18

8.7

EXPENSES

Pre-harvest

Equipment

Other

° cFi

ñ x

E ó

, s.

3

° m

° xw

..o+ a c

ä

k c3

.A-

0

ó

á

P.d

7

E á

8.56

8.42

1.41

5.22

4.29

12.61

4.29

6.76

4.44

5.61

5.76

14.01

3.32

10.42

6.37

4.25

3.98

9.66

7.85

4.29

8.40

4.21

1.80

13.50

$ 3.48

$2.91

$4.13

$ .84

$5.77

$ .10

$4.55

$33.76

$63.75

2.98

3.69

1.52

3.90

5.00

5.31

.75

1.00

1.35

1.90

.15

.10

3.75

3.17

19.42

26.03

48.07

45.19

2.33

3.44

8.41

3.77

3.12

4.57

7.04

5.58

1.87

1.49

1.48

1.26

2.10

.48

6.78

4.13

4.40

5.02

3.74

7.00

5.50

6.47

4.69

4.13

3.00

1:40

.75

1.08

.75

.75

90

.75

1.00

.84

2.50

2.50

7..50

2.50

1.85

3.60

2.17

1.75

1.75

.38

.20

.30

.22

.15

.19

.22

.22

.12

3.75

3.75

3.70

3.75

3.75

4.20

21.21

20.88

24.49

23.95

19.94

27.67

25.88

22.63

24.78

45.00

39.62

37.50

39.62

36.53

38.46

2.85

1.50

2.85

2.70

2.28

3.06

2.55

8.00

1.92

1.50

2.28

3.13

3.87

1.52

2.25

.

4.44

4.03

3.96

3.70

4.69

4.37

4.13

3.00

3.00

6.75

4.31

4.50

9.37

9.56

3.00

3.84

3.00

3.28

3.00

6.40

4.25

6.35

4.62

8.72

.84

1.20

1.00

.84

1.52

1.08

1.05

1.13

1.00

1.20

1.00

1.00

.96

1.32

150

.84

1.13

1.00

1.13

1.00

1.05

.34

.90

1.20

1.95

1.91

2.00

2.80

3.00

3.50

2.00

2.75

1.25

2.25

3.25

3.30

1.75

4.50

5.85

3.86

2.75

3.05

2.75

7.00

3.75

2.68

5.50

2.20

.12

.15

.13

.12

.15

.28

.54

.12

.20

.50

2.00

.50

.22

.15

.50

.43

.10

.11

.40

.12

.20

.15

4.40

3.88

3.75

3.84

4.13

3.85

4.55

4.50

3.58

3.84

3.85

3.80

3.80

4.65

3.87

3.80

3.69

4.13

4.62

4.50

3.85

4.50

4.10

4.58

4.55

6.43

4.58

22.57

32.00

22.39

23.78

26.44

32.58

27.80

22 95

22.00

26.46

27.61

35.64

34.41

38.12

20.61

25.38

23.01

33.65

24.33

34.06

27.00

26.89

33.86

39.34

37.79

34.32

33.94

32.60

35.00

29.62

32.60

31.15

32.69

23.75

26.44

23.37

28.85

26.25

28.65

26.44

30.77

17.50

17.02

7.50

19.23

7.50

19.71

16.83

14.42

17.31

19.23

'

1.96

1.79

1.77

1.70

1.82

1.54

1.70

1.75

1.70

1.23

1.38

1.21

1.50

1.37

1.49

1.38

1.60

.91

.89

.65

1.00

.65

1.02

.88

.75

.90

1.00

$3.31

2.50

2.35

2.34

2.06

1.95

2.06

1.90

2.00

$4.85

$ .27

$4.11

$7 72 $1.01

$2.92

$27.06

$29.56

$1.55

10 8 6.8

1.4

4.1

.04

5.8

38.0

41.5

2.2

*Average total expense per acre, less income from seed. divided by average yield of lint per acre.

arvest z

F

C a

11.73

11.21

11.77

8.55

9.5p

8.41

10.38

9.4'5

10.31

9.52

11.0'ß

6.310I

6.18

2.70

6.98

$22.9

17.3

16.2

16.2

14.2

13.5

14.25

13.1p

13.35

13.65

12.328

12.22

11.73

12.60

10.66

2.75

7.1p

6.Op

5.1

6.2

6.92

$10.64

15.0

al 4-4

$3.31

2.50

2.35

1.70

1.75

1.70

1.23

1.38

1.22

1.50

1.37

1.49

1.38

1.60

.91

.89

.65

1.00

2.34

2.06

1.95

2.06

1.90

2.00

1.96

1.78

1.77

1.70

1.82

1.54

.65

1.03

.88

.75

.90

1.00

$1.56

2.2

w

ÿ h o

$1.66

1.25

1.18

.75

.68

.74

.69

.80

.46

.85

.88

.85

.62

.69

.61

.44

.33

.50

1.17

1.03

.98

1.03

.95

1.00

.98

.89

.88

.85

.91.

.77

.32

.51

.44

.38

.45

.50

$ .78

$44.09

$94.98

71.63

67.34

39:41

45.85

26.08

25.37

11.83

28.65

11.82

29.37

25.09

21.49

25.79

28.65

48.58

46.74

48.71

35.38

39.41

34.82

42.98

39.12

42.68

67.05

59.03

55.88

59.03

64.43

57.31

56.29

51.14

50.58

48.58

52.15

44.18

1.1

62.0

Total

I

.á a

á> a;.::

$128.74

91.05

93.37

15.1c

13.9

15.6

88.26

79.91

80.37

14.6

15.1

16.3

82.98

74.37

84.98

82.17

73.77

75.36

71.15

84.15

66.52

72.36

73.18

81.29

15.9

15.3

17.0

16.6

16.4

17.1

16.7

18.8

17.3

17.1

16.6

19.6

63.18

62.36

56.82

21.3

18.4

19.1

69.44.

18.9

66.73

78.32

20.2

22.0

73.82.

83.97

46.69

50.75

34.84

62.30

22.6

22.0

21.4

24.4

22.5

27.7

36.15

63.43

52.09

48.38

59.65

67.99

23.5

26.7

25.5

28.0

28.9

29.7

$71.15

18.6c "

100.0

NET

RETURNS

For capital and manage ment

$115.04

91.80

86.50

86.16

70.76

68.88

67.69

64.59

64.50

64.30

56.42

53.09

52.07

51.41

51.35

50.86

50.26

43.72

41.23

40.13

38.60

35.56

35.02

30.36

25.92

25.69

21.50

14.34

13.61

12.93

12.30

11.33

9.63

6.77

5.63

4.55

$43.72

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS

11

The detailed data for 1929 -30 are presented in Table 3. Yields of lint ranged from 663 pounds down to 130 pounds and averaged

311 pounds per acre.

The highest gross return per acre, from farm 12, was only about five times as great as the lowest gross return, from farms 22 and 23, but farm 12 had a net return per acre more than twenty -five times as great as farm 30 which was lowest.

A comparison between the data for individual farms in the table discloses several points of interest. Farm 12 produced an excellent yield and had higher net returns per acre than any other in the group. The next highest gross return, from farm 27, was almost $61 less than from farm 12. The difference between the two in net returns, however, was only $23.24. Farm 12 lost part of its advantage over farm 27 because of its higher yield which increased harvesting costs.

But farm 12 also had spent

$14.34 more to grow its crop than had farm 27. Costs on farm

12 for labor, equipment, and hoeing and thinning were considerably above the average for the entire group. The high yield, however, covered up several features which for low -yield fields might have stood out as poorly managed factors.

All but two other farms which had net returns above $50 per acre produced their crops with pre- harvest costs below the average for the entire group. Furthermore, with only one exception, their yields were above the group average.

When the data are examined for the farms having net returns below $25 per acre it will be seen that the low yields are the most consistent difference between those and the higher return farms.

All the farms in that low group had yields over 100 pounds less than the group average. While some of the low return farms had high growing costs combined with low yields, the costs of others were held below the group average.

But no amount of saving in growing costs was sufficient to make up for the low yields and leave the growers any respectable sum for interest, rental, or management.

In Figure 2 some striking comparisons are brought out, based on the data in Table 3.

Yields, pre- harvest costs, and net returns are plotted by three

farm moving averages. Thus the group 1 point for the yield item was determined by averaging yields from farms 12, 27, and 1.

The group 2 yield point was the average of the yields from farms

27, 1, and 10; group 3 was the average of 1, 10, and 28, and so on for each point for each of the three items plotted.

Space does not permit an extensive discussion of the figure but it merits careful study by cotton growers. Attention is directed briefly to the following points: the general close relationship between yields and net returns; the general upward trend of growing costs -low yields and higher growing costs resulting in re-

12

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146

J t k

Á t

-

ó t

....

\

\\

,LIIVfY1c1.o

\\ ,NcrR[rv...a

Yac- ..ucar Goer.

s k ti

-----'----- _---

P

I

2 3 4 S i

7 8 9 It N

/2 Al

/9

/5 /2 /7 /8

/9

20 2/ 2228 21 ZS 2G 27 28 29 30 3/ 32 33 34

FAR,' Gnovr Nvneex

Fig. 2.- Relationship between pre- harvest costs, lint yields, and net returns per acre as indicated by the data for the 1929 -30 crop of Pima cotton in the Salt River Valley.

duced returns probably indicate less efficient management, on the average -and finally, the influence of growing costs on net returns when yields are low.

Reference to the bottom line in Table 3 shows the relative importance of the various items in pre- harvest costs.

Seed costs and ditch -upkeep are not of major importance and individual farmers cannot change their taxes materially. Labor, equipment, and water costs, however, are important factors, and within certain limits their share in total costs can be regulated by the farmer.

There must be some reason for the extreme differences shown in amounts of man labor, for instance, and in the costs for power and equipment. The wide variations in water costs, also, probably are subject to improvement.

Cultivation makes up a large share of the man and power time consumed in growing the crop. The careful farmer so prepares the seedbed that he kills many weeds before planting the crop.

The disk is a more effective and efficient weed killer than the cultivator.

Reference to Table 1 shows, furthermore, that irrigating time is a big labor factor. Proper land levelling and bordering reduces irrigating time. Also, it should produce a more efficient use of water, and cut down the amount needed, thus further reducing costs.

While Figure 2 shows the great influence of high yields, the efficient grower does not rely on a good yield to pull him through.

Table 4. -PIMA, LONG STAPLE COTTON: Income,

GROSS RETURNS

Man labor z p

Pd w.

c b

A a°

E pA

M

äa

5

14

27

23

13

1

2

19

3

16

17

11

12

10

9

8

18

26

25

22

28

4

15

7

29

24

6

21

20

30

40

30

40

40

70

35

100

160

28

25

70

40

180

20

40

40

10

40

50

26

78

65

8

33

37

20

13

34

500

380

432

475

520

441

21.0c

21.4

21.6

19.0

18.5

18.5

500

425

440

19.7

20.0

18.0

461

395

423

350

321

375

325

237

333

19.5

20.0

18.0

333

310

301

20.0

20.0

20.2

18.5

20.0

19.5

18.2

16.2

17.8

300

200

200

18.2

20.0

20.0

301

17.8

225

20.0

228 17.5

225

144

19.4

20.0

Av.

43.3

348

Percent of total expense

19.3c

as s

Ó

$105.15

91.32

93.14

90.34

96.46

81.81

98.75

85.00

79.20

89.90

79.00

76.14

70.00

64.20

75.78

60.22

47.40

65.10

60.67

50.38

53.58

54.66

40.00

40.00

53.58

45.00

39.97

43.69

28.80

$67.21

$14.23

11.82

12.30

13.52

14.80

12.55

14.23

12.10

12.52

13.12

11.24

12.04

9.96

9.14

10.67

9.25

6.75

9.48

9.48

8.82

8.57

8.54

5.69

5.69

8.57

6.40

6.49

6.40

4.10

$9.95

i

4 x

:

$11938

I

15%

93.14

105.44

13%

26

103.86

111.26

94.36

112.98

97.10

91.72

17%

21

13%

23

13%

17

103.02

90.24

88.18

79.96

73.34

86.45

69.47

54.15

74.58

70.15

59.20

62.15

63.20

45.69

45.69

24%

18%

1934

1634

14%

26

14

9

22%

15%

14%

20%

22

13%

12

62.15

20

51.40

15%

46.46

20

50.09

32.90

34%

20

$77.16

18%

7.38

5.51

5.82

4.68

4.38

7.78

4.20

2.72

6.84

4.58

4.26

6.23

8.60

4.05

3.62

$4.58

4.02

7.80

5.19

6.31

3.96

6.92

4.16

5.12

6.03

4.69

6.00

10.32

5.99

$5.51

9.7

`Average total expense per acre less income from seed divided by average yield of lint per acre.

**Stub- cotton, no expense for seed.

Equipment

Pe b

H

.95

3.34

2.94

.95

2.74

8.64

1.31

.53

1.76

3.81

$2.15

2.85

8.46

4.76

6.96

3.97

.89

.71

1.21

4.53

5.43

.85

.80

4.07

1.03

4.45

4.19

.44

$6.54

11.5

$..

c e

erses, and Net Returns per Acre for Capital and Management.

Salt River Valley, Arizona, 1930.

EXPENSES iarvest

$7.43

6.34

4.90

3.73

4.49

3.86

6.59

6.59

7.84

4.35

5.08

6.59

6.06

5.12

9.31

7.67

5.07

5.17

4.66

5.27

5.39

4.61

6.19

5.07

4.58

6.34

6.80

7.00

5.56

$5.78

10.1

i

Other

Tl

^ tT. A

$

1.92

2.25

2.09

2.00

1.22

5.00

2.70

2.24

2.03

3.92

1.50

3.20

4.42

2.22

3.07

2.50

3.46

6.00

2.12

1.25

4.00

2.70

2.70

3.50

4.00

2.25

1.83

4.00

$2.77

4.9

a,

[!J

$ **

1.00

1.02

1.40

.80

.88

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

2.00

1.00

.80

$ .86

1.5

1.00

1.00

1.20

1.00

.75

.75

1.08

1.20

1.80

1.00

1.20

a

qg

F m

ó

F

á

P+

°

$ .37

$3.84

$18.37

$24.04

.10

.40

3.84

4.12

19.40

28.93

18.27

20.77

.10

.24

.24

5.02

4.12

4.12

24.17

27.77

18.17

22.84

25.00

21.20

.32

.44

.40

.15

......

.31

.20

.36

.38

.38

.63

.10

.20

.25

.20

.28

.44

1.09

.20

.38

......

4.12

4.59

3.00

4.12

5.02

3.00

4.59

5.02

4.25

4.25

4.59

3.85

4.02

3.10

5.00

4.02

4.59

4,59

6.00

4.59

1.95

3.85

4.00

33.13

24.00

21.14

32.92

26.09

24.67

24.92

22.43

34.58

24.96

18.12

30.42

26.47

21.43

27.90

29.21

21.09

22.19

30.41

26.81

27.19

34.34

29.71

24.04

20.43

21.15

22.16

18.99

20.34

16.83

15.43

18.03

15.63

11.39

16.01

16.01

14.90

14.47

14.42

9.62

9.62

14.47

10.82

10.96

10.82

6.92

$ .28

$4.15

$25.89

.5

7.3

45.5

$16.75

29.4

itiarvest

Total m g

ß

U1 d

$2.50

1.90

2.16

2.37

2.60

2.21

2.50

2.13

2.20

2.31

1.98

2.11

1.75

1.61

1.87

1.63

1.18

1.67

1.66

1.55

1.51

1.50

1.00

1.00

1.51

1.13

1.14

1.13

.72

$1.74

3.0

G a

Ú q y

Ñ m

0.1

$14.4

10.9

12.4

13.7

15.0

12.7

14.4

12.2

12.6

13.3

11.3

12.2

10.10

9.2

10.8+

$2.50

1.90

2.16

2.37

2.60

2.21

2.50

2.13

2.20

9.3

6.8

9.61

9.6

8.9

8.6:

8.6

5.7'

5.7

1.50

1.00

1.00

8.6

1.51

6.4

6.58

1.13

1.14

6.49

4.1ß

1.13

.72

2.31

1.98

2.11

1.75

1.61

1.87

1.63

1.18

1.67

1.66

1.55

1.51

$10.05

$1.74

17.6

3.0

$1.25

.95

1.08

1.18

1.30

1.10

1.25

1.07

1.10

1.16

.99

1.06

.88

.81

.94

.81

.59

.83

.83

.78

.76

.75

.50

.50

.76

.56

.57

.57

.36

$ .87

1.5

ó m

E

LTI

F

$44.71

33.98

38.63

42.46

46.50

39.44

44.71

38.02

39.34

41.24

35.33

37.82

31.31

28.72

33.53

29.07

21.18

29.79

29.77

27.72

26.93

26.80

17.89

17.89

26.93

20.13

20.39

20.14

12.87

$31.15

54.5

s.

g v

4L aFi ^

W p

$63.08

53.38

67.56

66.63

74.27

57.61

77.84

62.02

60.48

9.8e

10.9

12.8

11.2

11.4

10.2

12.7

11.7

10.9

74.16

61.42

62.49

56.23

51.15

68.11

13.2

12.7

11.9

13.2

13.1

15.3

54.03

39.30

60.21

56.24

49.15

13.8

13.7

15.2

14.0

13.0

54.83

15.4

56.01

38.98

40.08

15.3

16.6

17.2

57.34

46.94

47.58

54.48

42.58

16.2

18.0

18.0

21.4

26.7

$57.04

100.0

13.5e*

NET

RETURNS

For capital and manage ment

$56.30

39.76

37.88

37.23

36.99

36.75

35.14

35.08

31.24

28.86

28.82

25.69

23.73

22.19

18.34

15.44

14.85

14.37

13.91

10.05

7.32

7.19

6.73

5.61

4.81

4.46

-1.12

-9.68

$20.12

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS

13

He studies his business and makes as many adjustments as he can to reduce production costs thereby increasing his chances for profit from his farm enterprise.

PIMA IN 1930 -31

The Pima picture for 1930 -31 in a general way is similar to that of the previous year. There were 29 fields included in 1930.

The average yield was higher by 37 pounds per acre and total costs averaged about $14 per acre less, but prices of lint and seed were so reduced that the average net return was less than half that from the 1929 -30 crop. Many farmers had to use a portion of their crop for rental or financing purposes, or to meet interest charges, often leaving less than nothing to pay for their management.

Water costs showed about a 20 per cent increase in 1930 but the total pre- harvest cost was a little over 4 per cent less than the previous year. Picking charges were reduced 50 per cent, from $2.50 to $1.25 per 100 pounds of seed cotton, and ginning charges about 17 per cent, from 90 cents to 75 cents.

Miscellaneous charges remained about the same.

The detailed data for 1930 -31 are included in Table 4.

Farm by farm relationships are shown to have been about as they were in 1929 -30. Growing costs averaged about $2.20 per acre higher for the ten low return farms than for the high return farms but the much greater difference in net returns was brought about by the higher yields of the latter group of farms.

Decreasing

.

yields, generally, were accompanied by increasing costs per pound of lint and by decreasing net returns.

In some cases selling price entered the picture to disturb the relationship.

An illustration may be drawn from farms 11 and 9. Farm 11 produced 9 pounds per acre less lint than farm 9 at a per -acre cost about $10 higher and a cost per pound 2.6 cents higher. By virtue of receiving 3.1 cents per pound more for the crop, however, farm 11 finished the season $1.13 per acre ahead of farm 9.

Other interesting cases might be cited. Farm 19, for example, although harvesting a discouragingly low yield, had held down growing costs to more than $7 an acre below the group average.

As a result that grower had several dollars more per acre at the end of the season than such a farm as number 25 which produced a much higher yield but also had higher growing costs.

All three of the net loss farms had distinctly low yields and high pre- harvest costs.

That combination is a sure loser.

PIMA COTTON THREE -YEAR AVERAGES

5.

The three -year averages for Pima cotton are presented in Table

Some of the data merit brief discussion. Yields were lower in 1929 and 1930 than in 1928, the price of lint was cut practically in half, seed was reduced one -third, and gross incomes in 1930 -31 were less than one -half those in 1928 -29.

14

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146

Ó u

Ñ

NO i-+ a

ODtMNeM0eM0

0)COMt:HM 0

CO

ó er

HV0000 m H

-4,

O

O

H

'

6; 'L' ctl

~

N

V r4

Ñ

H

OeTI mo

2-..

H

H

I--

R

0

'10H mQeMGh

M O H

H

00 ti

1CGCVCtinCl

0

0

O

H

OMOMOm

01MOf0m'

0

0 t fß

N

0 r-

H

0

H

.-i

00 m10

J

VHO

Cl o mNO000=1.-.00f.-01.4'' p dàï}

H00OOCG1VJ00

0NM0 CO

V y}

HH

O

1.

eM

0 t_

C[>

0

V

H t

CO ti em00t00HNtH

CON

VW

H

H

W.

H1T0000NH

Vl

MOH

H

VJC9

HT

MÓ]HeHCV e

G

0

C

0;140,4

N H

O

O

0

H

H

1..

9}

C Ç

06

H

H

H

.

M

N

H

6

N

V!

N

1r

CO y}

Ñ

W

H

N0

COCO

H

H

Á

OVO>0 mOpVCO

M eM

H

00 co

O

H

CO

H H

0V00H00NCOM

OCOHOHCV '

C9H

COHMN

CO

H

CO y¡

0 m

CD

OC

CO -

P9

CO

Cl

H

Co

.4, i-1 co

Y

T.,

ÿ

.5.

F it'd y

V

G

..do

Y

V

1

óE i.

w

ÿ E°.

óá: c°.

Ca+u'

.5

t1

+iP'.0

cri

,C ci w

Cn

S+ d

A a v:n^

W M cO

..V

Óti

Ó F

O

ÿ ttl y oá

°'Qmc+,d,rodÿpap`CC,

0.n

aíxFmxAF cJ

ó d a ro

+

;''

V b

Ctl 7

P.rcC7WGw

p

=

Fy°,

á p

,

0

U

..ÿ

áá

;,

Pu ti

.pG.

M z" y

09 9

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS

15

There were several distinct changes in expense items. An increased useáof tractors and a decrease in the number of cultivations reduced the cost of labor, power, and machinery. The 1930 crop was grown on the highest water rate of any of the three years, while taxes during the period showed a decline.

Picking and ginning costs were alike in 1928 and 1929 but were reduced by about 50 and 17 per cent, respectively in 1930. Bagging and ties and insurance charges were lower both in 1929 and 1930 while other minor miscellaneous items remained about unchanged. Seed costs, of course, declined with the gin price for seed.

Proportions of the total expense represented by the various items are listed in Table 5 and are shown graphically and discussed briefly in the later section on general comparisons of all crops.

UPLAND, SHORT STAPLE COTTON

Upland varieties of cotton have been grown in the Salt River

Valley since the early days of modern agriculture in the region.

It was not until 1923, however, that upland cotton came to be a major crop and seriously menaced the supremacy of Pima cotton held by that variety since its rise to importance during the years just prior to 1920.

Attempts to maintain the Valley as

a purely American -

Egyptian (long staple) cotton community were fairly successful until prices of upland cotton, especially in relation to long staple types, rose rapidly following the 1921 agricultural depression.

Várious factors, some of which were mentioned in the previous discussion of long staple cotton, were responsible for a price relationship between the two types which apparently was unfavorable to Pima. The result was an increase from around 3,000 acres of upland, short staple cotton, in 1922 to more than 50,000 acres in 1923.

In 1924, as shown in Figure 1, upland varieties occupied about 122,000 acres or nearly 95 per cent of the total cotton acreage in the Salt River Valley.

While the results of the present study, as well as of various others, show definitely higher acre returns usually are secured with long staple cotton, still a number of factors have been responsible for the fact that upland cotton has exceeded Pima in acreage every year since 1923.

PRE -HARVEST, OR GROWING COSTS, OF UPLAND COTTON

In the section on Pima cotton, Table 1 was presented and discussed.

It shows time and cost of operations in bringing cotton up to harvest. That table is offered merely as a guide to assist farmers in calculating growing costs, being admittedly subject to criticism because it may not fit any specific cases. The totals from that table for labor and power costs have been carried over to Tables 2 and 6.

16

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146

Average costs of producing short staple cotton during the years

1928 -30, based on the present survey, and estimated. costs for

1933, are set forth in Table 6.

Blank spaces are prov.ded in the table wherein farmers may calculate their costs for any future year.

Table 6.- Average Cost per Acre of Producing Short Staple Cotton.

Salt River Valley, Arizona.

Expense items

Man labor*

Power*

Machinery

Water

Seed

Hoe and thin

Faxes

Picking

Supervision and hauling

Ginning

Bag -ties and insurance

Fumigation

Total

1928 -30

Average

$7.80

6.25

2.35

4.76

.98

2.60

3.98

17.84

2.38

5.96

2.38

1.17 **

$58.45

Horse farming

1933

Costs * **

$3.25

3.12

1.76

3.57

.49

1.04

3.98

9.10

1.19

4.77

1.43

**

$33.70

Costs for any year

1928 -30

* * **

Average

Tractor farming

1933

Costs* **

Costs for any year

* * **

$4.65

7.20

4.76

.98

2.60

3.98

17.84

* * *

2.38

5.96

2.38

1.17 **

$53.90

$1.94

6.40

3.57

.49

1.04

3.98

9.10

1.19

4.77

1.43

*

$33.91

From Table 1.

** Two -year average, fumigation not required in 1933.

* ** 1933 costs estimated.

* * ** Blank space may be used to figure cost for any future year.

* * ** Machinery charge included with tractor.

All items, except man labor and power, in the columns of the table showing 1928 -30 averages, were taken from the three

-year, average table of upland cotton costs based on the farms studied.

The labor and power items, however, were taken from Table 1 and do not agree with the same items in the three -year average, table.

In the latter table, costs for those items are less simply because some of the farmers included in the survey did not perform all the operations listed in Table 1, which was compiled to show average costs where all operations are performed. Adjustments can be made readily to take care of the difference and to fit the table to individual cases.

ANALYSIS OF THE 1929 -30 DATA

During the cotton crop year 1929 -30 detailed data were collected from fifty -one fields. The record of gross incomes, expenses, and net returns for that year is included in Table 7.

The charge for picking short staple cotton in 1929 -30 was $1.50

per 100 pounds of seed cotton, while ginning was done at 45 cents.

Miscellaneous costs of harvesting and marketing were the same as for Pima.

Yields for the surveyed fields ranged from almost a bale and one -half per acre down to less than two -fifths of a bale and averaged 457.4 pounds, which amount was considerably higher

6 b

°

b

F-.

yy

.á.., w ti a g

.7a

17.1c

18.5

17.9

17.3

18.0

18.0

18.8

17.5

17.1

17.3

16.5

19.0

17.3

18.0

17.4

17.0

17.1

17.7

16.3

17.2

17.1

17.9

17.9

17.7

17.7

18.4

18.0

17.0

18.2

17.0

19.0

17.7

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.6

17.5

17.1

17.1

18.0

17.5

17.9

17.0

17.0

17.5

16.2

17.0

16.9

17.0

18.2

17.0

725

580,

583

596

568

657

656

562

528

531

531

500

433

490

425

440

411

395

450

480

480

490

425

480

500

489

437

450

439

463

510

459

500

528

600

526

387

380

395

350

410

387

356

325

365

430

360

250

323

200

189

18

29 s

38

11

20

48

9

12

23

22

6

50

44

14

15

40

5

36

49

17

37

21

39

34

1

28

16

45

31

27

33

46

30

47

51

24

41

35

32

4

2

42

7

3

10

43

19

26

25

13

80

50

100

26

80

27

80

25

96

20

37

80

40

73

27

60

50

40

100

95

80

40

40

30

75

77

105

40

20

12

80

240

70

40

80

10

50

38

12

31

130

12

48

66

70

36

51

40

17

10

210

Av.

58.5

457

Percent of total expense

17.5c

Table 7.- UPLAND, SHORT STAPLE COTTON: Income, Expenses, and Net Returns per Acre for Capital and Management. Salt River Valley, Arizona, 1929.

_.

GROSS RETURNS

EXPENSES

ó v

R. y

G,m

.+

0

F

Man labor

`

R a

' b

Equipment a

F. R%

EE

Pre-harvest ti abi

O m

Other

1

1 k

03

E

O

E

-

Harvest

.,

G w

Dl.

O g

W ro c.

á

°

7

G,

..,

O

E

Ó

F A

:T.:^ x

P

0 y

0

Q m b

O p kt', am

. x

Ú

P,

..

R.d

ra

ó c

-

14.70

12.75

14.40

12.99

14.70

12.75

13.70

12.33

1L85

11.61

11.40

11.85

10.50

1.2.30

11.01

15.84

18.00

15.78

15.00

14.67

13.11

13.50

13.17

13.89

13.50

14.40

14.40

10.68

9.75

10.95

12.90

10.80

7.50

9.69

6.00

5.67

$21.75

17.58

17.49

17.82

17.04

16.71

19.68

16.86

15.84

15.93

15.93

15.00

15.30

13.77

15.00

$ 80.11

$13.74

77.85

79.24

80.56

76.50

82.08

84.96

85.75

72.68

82.09

75.96

35.70

76.16

74.80

69.87

09.00

65.79

69.16-

67.15

66.50

72.7S

65.79

60.52

55.25

64.24

$123.98

108.41

104.30

102.76

102.24

100.54

106.93

96.66

90.29

95.05

95.05

88.50

90.52

84.46

90.25

99.53

105.00

89.95

86.50

80.68

82.84

69.66

61.20

42.25

59.41

36.40

32.13

$145.73

125.99

121.85

120.58

119.28

117.25

126.61

113.52

106.13

110.98

110.98

103.50

105.82

98.23

105.25

115.37

123.00

105.73

101.50

95.35

95.95

91.35

92.41

94.45

90.00

96.48

99.36

100.45

85.43

96.48

88.95

100.40

88.91

88.50

82.20

80.85

77.40

80.56

79.00

77.00

85.08

77.40

71.20

65.00

75.19

82.56

72.00

49.75

69.10

42.40

37.80

$ 93.85

191/4

113/4

14%

26%

131/a

201/4

15

201/4,

111/2

111/2

173/q,

173/4

211/4

211/2

15%

23

131/4

21

381/2

26

11 ÿ'4

233/4

30

3016

27%

321/4

271/4

19%

15

141/2

20%

13

16%

181/4

171/4

13%

271/4

30

201/2

14%

221/4

17

171/2

193/4

141/4

151/z

1414

131/2

151/4

20%

251/4

17

$3.56

4.39

8.00

4.06

6.09

4.47

6.08

3.45

3.46

5.30

5.29

6.39

6.49

4.69

6.87

5.16

4.02

8.17

9.02

6.15

4.35

6.66

5.13

5.26

5.89

4.26

4.67

4.26

4.05

4.56

6.14

7.58

5.10

3.98

6.33

8.53

7.77

3.55

7.15

8.97

9.25

8.22

9.65

8.19

5.95

4.48

4.34

6.07

3.89

5.02

5.46

$ 6.37

2.27

6.27

3.66

8.65

4.36

6.40

.17

.57

4.31

4.57

6.17

7.01

5.91

8.56

13.23

.97

3.77

4.13

3.48

3.16

4.45

6.97

3.77

2.04

2.29

11.47

6.37

1.84

6.36

12.92

7.52

1.47

2.00

.84

2.91

3.16

1.81

3.69

.27

4.65

1.81

3.23

7.12

8.32

4.73

2.67

1.49

4.44

1.77

$7 76

$ 1.50

1.87

1.74

2.31

3.01

5.85

6.48

2.10

2.10

6.50

.48

7.72

1.49

1.13

4.63

1.49

2.25

.25

2.73

8.62

9.82

1.50

8.93

9.56

5.70

8.91

2.28

3.23

6.20

4.64

10.13

3.18

6.20

2.28

2.78

7.34

3.86

8.21

4.79

3.94

4.85

9.37

8.72

4.08

7.00

5.83

4.50

6.12

4.87

5.25

3.00

4.46

4.17

6.41

3.96

4.85

3.00

4.82

4.13

3.00

3.00

3.28

3.00

3.00

3.00

4.62

6.14

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

6.56

9.12

3.00

4.69

4.25

4.31

$3.96

4.03

6.46

5.02

3.83

4.50

5.12

5.42

3.00

5.44

5.44

3.74

$4.65

1.11

1.08

.75

.96

1.00

1.00

.68

1.00

.90

.75

1.20

1.00

1.20

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

$1.00

2.10

.92

.68

LOO

1.20

.40

1.05

1.00

.90

.90

1.08

1.20

LOO

1.05

1.50

1.50

.60

1.20

1.00

1.50

.90

1.10

1.20

1.50

1.20

1.00

1.10

1.05

*

1.50

1.05

1.00

$1.04

1.60

2.25

2.25

2.00

1.50

1.95

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.32

2.25

2.60

2.75

3.25

2.27

3.50

2.20

3.25

2.10

3.00

6.00

3.25

2.50

5.60

3.75

2.45

1.00

3.75

3.75

3.25

$2.00

2.00

2.69

1.45

1.55

3.25

2.25

2.10

1.47

3.00

3.00

1.50

1.75

1.75

3.33

1.75

1.50

2.25

2.50

1.00

2.10

'

'

$.13

.26

.50

.15

.12

.03

.15

.50

.25

.20

.15

.12

.12

.28

.12

.50

.22

.54

.22

.23

.12

.30

.50

.10

.90

.31

.40

.18

.18

.30

.40

.22

.22

.28

.15

.20

.22

.40

.03

.30

.10

.15

.50

.20

.15

.40

.13

.20

-

.11

8.24

$25.81

$20.55

6.

5.

6.

5.

6.62

5.^4

5

1

4

8

5.$

5.

5.'

4

S

3

5.

6.-

5.

4.

5.s4

2

5. 9

4.',1

4.

9

4.

3

5.11

4.;;6

3.;8

2

8

3

$9.19

7.'

1

5.:S

8.12

7.'

7.

7

2

8.t6

7.

9

7.

3

7.

7.

6.

7.

8.

7.

6.;

6. .0

6.

9

5

3

0

0

7

7

5

6.

6.

5.'0

0

5

6, i

5.'

6.

6.i.8

6.

6.

8

8

E

3

5

2.

2.

0

5

2.66

2.66

2.50

2.55

2.30

2.50

2.64

3.00

2.63

2.50

2.45

2.19

$3.62

2.93

2.91

2.97

2.84

2.78

3.28

2.81

2.64

2.1.7

2.45

2.13

2.00

2.05

1.98

1.93

1.00

1.99

1.75

2.05

1.94

1.78

1.62

1.83

2.15

1.80

1.25

2.25

2.20

2.31

2.25

2.40

2.40

2.45

2.13

2.40

1.62

1.00

.94

$3.62

2.93

2.91

2.97

2.84

2.78

3.28

2.81

2.64

2.66

2.66

2.50

2.55

2.30

2.50

2.64

3.00

2.63

2.50

2.44

2.19

2.25

2.20

2.31

2.25

2.40

2.40

1.75

2.05

1.94

1.78

1.62

1.83

2.15

1.80

1.25

2.45

2.13

2.40

2.17

2.45

2.13

2.00

2.05

1.98

1.93

1.00

1.98

1.62

1.00

.94

17.42

21.60

17.78

15.75

18.45

17.42

16.02

14.63

16.43

19.35

16.20

11.25

14.53

9.00

8.50

20.25

21.60

21.60

22.05

19.13

21.60

19.49

22.05

19.13

19.80

18.49

17.78

22.95

20.65

22.50

23.76

27.00

23.67

22.50

22.00

19.67

20.25

19.76

20.84

$32.63

26.37

19.61

26.73

25.56

25.07

29.52

25.29

23.76

23.90

23.90

22.50

22.15

20.04

24.29

25.87

32.22

28.13

24.89

21.23

29.21

33.42

27.90

14.90

29.40

27.06

27.79

21.66

27.77

31.66

32.80

22.38

29.59

25.50

33.99

28.29

28.14

23.68

24.45

25.41

22.03

26.25

34.41

37.37

25.79

23.89

21.13

26.46

21.06

24.54

25.08

$22.39

20.67

28.47

20.66

25.50

24.59

27.54

21.71

19.88

25.43

25.68

22.88

$2.28

$6.16

$2.28

30.84

29.17

28.06

27.47

32.83

28.06

24.85

29.12

27.49

25.28

23.07

25.93

$51.47

41.60

32.77

42.17

40.33

39.54

46.58

39.90

37.49

37.72

37.72

35.50

36.22

32.60

35.50

37.49

42.60

37.55

35.50

34.74

31.04

31.96

31.19

32.87

31.96

34.08

34.08

84.79

30.19

34.08

30.76

34.79

30.19

30.54

25.56

17.76

22.94

14.20

13.40

$32.42

$5.80

9.9

$2.48

4.3

$3.87

3.75

4.13

3.75

3.88

4.40

3.38

3.36

3.50

4.20

4.20

3.70

3.86

3.85

3.84

3.84

4.58

3.62

3.75

3.30

3.75

3.75

4.40

3.75

4.50

3.62

3.75

3.75

3.87

3.62

3.40

3.55

4.62

3.85

3.85

3.60

4.50

3.25

3.85

3.75

3.85

4.50

3.85

4.50

4.10

4.13

1.40

3.65

3.85

4.58

3.88

$3.84

1.13

1.10

1.16

1.13

1.20

1.20

1.23

1.06

1.20

1.08

1.22

1.06

1.10

1.03

.99

1.28

1.15

1.25

1.32

1.50

1.52

1.25

1.25

1.09

.97

.95

.99

.88

1.03

.97

.89

.81

.91

1.08

.90

.63

.81

.50

.47

$1.81

1.46

1.46

1.48

1.42

1.39

1.04

1.40

1.32

1.33

1.33

1.25

$1.15

13.3

8.0

1.8

.4

6.6

44.3

35.3

3.9

10

6

3.9

2.0

55.7

NET

RETURNS

Total i

°

*

»

.,

4.8

7.2c

7.6

7.5

8.9

8.9

8.7

9.1

8.9

9.3

7.6

8.6

8.5

8.3

8.0

7.9

10.6

10.3

9.0

8.9

8.4

9.9

8.8

9.7

9.5

9.8

10.9

10.2

11.5

12.0

11.4

11.1

10.6

12.1

11.9

11.8

10.1'

8.9

9.9

10.7

10.8

9.4

10.8

10.0

11.0

10.8

10.3

9.8

10.3

13.2

17.6

18.8

9.7c**

For capital and management

38.33

36.68

36.50

36.38

34.63

33.62

32.86

32.86

32.81

32.69

31.62

30.43

29.52

29.35

28.34

27.78

27.69

26.65

26.28

23.74

21.78

21.03

20.70

20.05

18.60

18.54

17.09

$71.87

63.72

60.61

57.75

53.45

53.12

52.49

51.91

48.76

47.83

47.58

45.12

44.19

43.60

43.50

43.47

43.03

42.39

42.11

39.48

39.45

16.76

1.14

-3.39

$35.62

c.

O

P,

$73.86

62.27

61.24

62.83

65.83

64.13

74.12

61.61

57.37

63.15

63.40

58.38

61.63

54.63

61.75

71.90

79.97

63.34

59.39

55.87

56.50

53.02

55.73

57.95

53.62

61.85

65.74

67.59

52.57

63.67

56.26

68.78

58.48

58.98

52.85

52.51

49.62

52.87

52.35

50.72

61.34

55.62

50.17

44.30

55.14

63.96

53.46

32.66

52.34

41.26

41.19

$58.23

100.0

*Stub -cotton, no expense for seed.

* *Average total expense per acre less income from seed divided by average yield of lint per acre.

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS 17 than the average yield for the whole State. Lint yields were calculated from weights of seed cotton using a common ginning percentage of 33.3 per cent. Receiving an average price of 17.5 cents per pound of lint and $30 per ton for seed, the growers' average total gross income was $93.85 per acre.

All expenses, less interest, incurred in growing, harvesting, and marketing the crop averaged $58.23 per acre. About 45 per cent of that amount was due to costs in growing the crop and 55 per cent to harvesting and marketing. Net returns averaged

$35.62 per acre, which was approximately $10 less than was realized from the 1928 -29 crop, as shown in Table 10 presenting the three -year averages.

Only one grower is shown to have lost money and his loss was more than balanced by the allowance made for his labor. Furthermore, all but six farms would have had more than a mere labor income even if they had charged against the crop as much as $20 an acre for interest at 8 per cent on a $250 valuation.

FACTORS INFLUENCING NET RETURNS

An analysis of the reasons for the spread of more than $75 an acre in net returns between the highest and the lowest farms in

1929 -30 brings out a common conclusion, namely, that acre yield stands out as the biggest factor affecting net returns. To illustrate the effects of yield, averages for the first eight fields in Table

7 are compared with those for the last eight fields. The-first group of fields averaged considerably larger in size, but with a great variation in that factor and rather a small number of fields, that item probably is not significant.

Differences in costs for seed, water, and taxes were small and can be disregarded.

Other important items are shown in the accompanying table.

Table 8. -A Comparison Between 8 High Return and 8 Low Return Upland

Cotton Farms in 1929 -30, Salt River Valley, Arizona.

S-i d y U ua

0 ir

Sr

604 17.5

$123.85

305 17.1

61.72

O r4 4)

8 High Return Farms

$5.01

$6.80

$2.16

8 Low Return Farms

6.09

7.28

3.26

$23.94

26.36

7.9

$58.11

13.68

13.3

When all pre- harvest costs are added it is apparent that the high -profit farms grew their crops for only about $2.42 per acre less than the low -profit farms.

Differences in costs, therefore, were not important.

Likewise, the four -tenths of a cent

18

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146 difference in price received per pound, if applied to the yield of the low group, could improve their returns by only about $1.22

per acre. The main factor was the extreme difference in yields.

The 604 pounds per acre of the high farms cost them, of course, over $20 more to harvest than did the 305 pounds produced by the low group.

But, even after paying that difference, the high yield farms still had almost $45 per acre higher net returns.

A comparison between two individual farms only emphasizes the importance of a good yield. Farms 11 and 10, for instance, had identical pre- harvest costs and received the same average price for their lint. By securing 135 pounds more lint cotton per acre, however, farm 11 finished the season with more than $20 an acre higher net returns than farm 10.

Farms 49 and 43 demonstrate the importance of holding down growing costs.

The yields were practically the same and farm

49 received a cent per pound less for its lint.

Yet by growing the crop for over $12 per acre less, that farm had almost $8 an acre greater net returns than the other.

To show the effect of selling price on net returns a comparison may be made between farms 17 and 10 which produced about the same yields at practically the same pre- harvest expense. The crop from the former field, however, brought 1 cent more per pound resulting in $6.76 per acre higher net returns. Had the grower on farm 10 been able to increase his income by that amount for each of his 60 acres of crop, his cotton profits for the season would have been over $400 larger than they were.

These examples bring out the important factors in determining farm profits made from producing upland cotton in the Salt River

Valley.

They show further that every reasonable effort should be made to secure a good acre yield.

THE 1930 -31 CROP

Thirty -eight fields of upland cotton were included in the third year of the study, the data being shown in Table 9.

Growing costs appear to have been about the same as during the previous season, while the average yield per acre was substantially higher. Most harvesting charges were distinctly lower, picking and ginning being calculated at 75 and 35 cents, respectively, per 100 pounds of seed cotton.

before.

Many growers received less than $10

But, with a 40 per cent drop in lint prices and seed bringing only $20 a ton, the average gross income for 1930 -31 was over $35 an acre less than the year

Had growing costs been lower in 1930 cotton farmers would have shown a better return. As it was the thirty -eight fields returned $25 less per acre as a net average.

an acre net return which amount was not sufficient to cover interest charges, where there were such, or if a share rent had to be satisfied little or nothing remained to pay the farmer for his management.

Table 9.- UPLAND, SHORT STAPLE COTTON: Income, Expenses, and Net Returns per Acre for Capital and Management. Salt River Valley, Arizona, 1930.

GROSS RETURNS

Man labor

LTi c.

C b

.2

:

G

0) .F.

8

19

23

2

35

30

] 8

2S

27

1

4

3

7

21

13

32

38

10

29

26

14

33

31

34

22

25

15

17

36

20

6

12

24

16

11

37

9

5

509

488

262

460

363

485

406

457

400

500

325

500

437

487

533

528

450

344

407

333

350

766

715

650

661

675

741

650

500

423

381

283

501

469

410

425

360

381

40

200

40

35

95

13

15

45

15

60

40

80

78

15

36

200

SO

56

40

80

100

73

280

80

40

25

60

76

45

30

65

100

20

40

30

20

40

13

Av.

63.1

474

Percent of total expense

á

c.

ri ß

10.2

9.0

10.5

9.8

10.5

9.5

10.0

14.0

8.5

9.9

9.6

9.1

10.0

10.0

10.0

10.5

9.5

9.8

10.9

15.5

9.8

10.5

9.2

9.8

9.9

9.9

10.5e

10.2

10.5

10.6

10.6

9.4

10.2

10.5

11.1

10.5

15.S

9.7

10.3e

8.12

9.14

8.00

10.56

9.00

7.88

8.14

6.66

7.00

7.62

5.66

10.02

9.38

8.20

8.50

7.20

7.62

8.74

9.74

10.66

10.18

9.76

5.24

9.20

7.26

9.70

$15.32

14.30

13.00

13.22

13.50

14.82

13.00

10.00

8.46

10.00

6.50

10.00

$9.51

CC

L'

C

,rr r,

43.70

51.14

50.64

50.14

53.19

40.56

45.31

38.12

44.43

39.99

45.24

39.60

54.12

40.41

41.37

40.09

35.13

33.25

38.10

39.62

42.58

46.67

39.44

38.67

36.07

38.10

$80.43

73.29

68.25

66.50

71.55

69.65

66.63

52.50

46.95

52.50

51.22

48.70

$48.78

^

_

N m

Ó

F f. J1 x

ó

$95.75

87.59

81.25

79.72

85.05

84.47

79.63

62.50

55.41

181/2

23ÿ'4

183/4

181/4

291/2

301/4

261/4'

151/2

14%

62.50

57.72

58.70

52.44

60.88

61.30

60.32

62.95

45.80

54.51

45.38

54.13

18

173/4

12%

101/2

151/2

181/2

191/4

24

121/2

48.11

54.38

47.60

16%

191/4

151/2

64.68

49.41

33 ?/4

141/2

49.25

161/4

48.23

41.79

40.25

45.72

45.28

52.60

191/4

134.

151/2

16%

181/4

14

161/4

193/4

18

56.05

353/4

47.64

203/4

47.17

261/2

43.27

45.72

293/4

23

$58.29

191/2

+:

ó

U

3.17

4.63

4.94

5.79

7.22

3.75

5.75

4.15

4.69

5.06

5.75

4.63

9.99

4.33

4.88

5.05

.5.50

4.23

4.85

5.90

5.43

10.74

6.25

7.97

0.91

6.92

$5.54

7.10

5.62

5.50

8.84

9.04

7.87

4.62

4.45

5.41

5.34

3.82

$5.88

12.3

$ 1.35

7.34

1.75

5.40

7.18

10.73

7.78

1.49

5.40

1.75

.67

2.75

.17

.92

.51

4.76

8.57

.97

1.28

.96

.27

1.28

4.17

2.92

12.24

.53

.65

4.47

4.89

.51

.33

.44

3.15

11.17

5.49

4.32

.89

$7 23

15.2

$1.33

3.80

.45

_____

5.46

.45

3.80

8.75

7.32

9.06

.45

4.53

3.75

8.40

4.65

9.30

4.02

4.86

8.40

4.65

8.27

6.63

2.25

3.84

6.01

5.86

7.15

5.07

3.15

2.85

*Stub- cotton, no expense for seed.

* *Average total expense per acre, less income from seed, divided by average yield of lint per acre.

5.09

4.20

4.85

4.85

6.50

5.40

4.66

5.05

7.89

4.66

4.07

4.07

6.40

5.84

4.20

5.23

5.69

4.85

6.59

5.56

5.27

4.60

6.26

5.56

5.32

6.59

88.71

5.23

5.69

5.69

6.59

4.21

7.06

5.09

3.62

6.26

4.11

4.62

5.43

11.5

1.00

1.00

1.00

.80

.72

.80

1.00

1.00

.88

L20

1.00

.90

.88

$ .86

1.8

1.00

1.40

1.00

1.00

1.00

.50

1.00

1.40

.50

1.28

Pre-harvest

-m k

$

L20

1.20

*

.72

1.10

1.00

LOO

1.00

.72

1.20

1.25

$1.30

1.50

1.93

1.65

2.12

1.91

1.61

2.00

1.25

2.50

3.62

4.42

1.48

2.00

.90

2.05

2.71

4.00

1.56

2.00

1.42

1.56

5.14

5.14

1.85

3.00

3.48

6.00

1.75

1.11

5.00

4.00

3.07

2.46

2.00

2.15

1.52

5.00

$2.58

5.4

$.16

.45

.45

.40

.19

.05

.62

.10

.25

.41

.27

.10

.15

.27

.20

.20

.15

.20

.44

.30

.10

.35

.25

.31

.16

.24

.44

.32

.25

.66

.10

.25

.62

.30

.32

$.26

.5

5.02

3.84

4.59

4.25

3.00

2.56

4.25

4.02

4.02

4.13

2.56

3.87

4.12

3.84

4.12

4.12

4.00

5.00

3.20

4.10

3.40

5.02

4.12

$3.00

2.25

3.00

3.84

4.1.3

3.20

4.13

3.00

3.84

3.00

3.40

5.02

2.56

3.87

4.12

$3.78

7.9

EXPENSES

$21.39

25.12

23.44

23.65

30.15

30.14

30.07

22.76

19.73

24.17

27.55

20.63

17.27

25.09

23.79

26.02

29.94

23.90

24.28

22.15

25.53

23.15

27.78

23.83

35.86

24.89

27.30

25.91

22.84

20.59

24.96

29.55

28.23

33.15

29.36

30.21

31.15

33.12

$26.02

54.6

$17.24

16.09

14.62

14.87

15.19

16.67

10.35

8.17

10.91

9.14

10.28

9.00

11.88

10.13

8.87

9.16

7.49

7.88

8.57

6.37

11.27

14.63

11.25

9.52

11.25

7.31

11.25

9.83

10.96

11.99

11.45

10.98

5.90

10.55

9.23

9.56

8.10

8.57

$10.69

22.4

arvest

Total g

2

,.r

5.

4

5

2

2.

5

4.

3

3.

1

5.

9

4.27

4.40

4.0

5.

4

4.73

444

4.

7

3.

0

3.

8

4.(0

2.<7

5.16

4.92

4.31

4.46

3.78

4.00

$8.(4

7.r1

6..3

6.'4

7.19

7.r8

6.

2

5.25

4.44

5.-

5

3.

1

5.

5

4.

9

5.11

5.

0

84.'9

10.

2.55

2.44

1.31

2.30

1.82

2.42

2.03

2.29

2.00

2.64

2.25

1.97

2.04

1.67

1.75

1.91

1.41

2.50

2.34

2.05

2.13

1.80

1.90

$3.83

3.58

3.25

3.30

3.38

3.71

3.25

2.50

2.12

2.50

1.63

2.50

2.19

2.44

2.67

$2.38

5.0

$1.92

1.79

1.62

1.65

1.69

1.86

1.01

1.15

1.00

1.32

1.12

.98

1.02

.84

.88

.96

.70

1.25

1..63

1.25

1.06

1.25

.82

1.25

1.09

1.22

1.34

1.27

1.22

.65

1.15

.91

1.21

1.17

1.03

1.06

.90

.95

$1.19

2.5

$3.83

3.58

3.25

3.30

3.38

3.71

3.25

2.50

2.12

2.50

1.63

2.50

2.19

2.44

2.67

2.55

2.44

1.31

2.30

1.82

2.42

2.02

2.29

2.00

2.64

2.25

1.97

2.04

1.67

1.75

1.91

1.41

2.50

2.34

2.05

2.13

1.80

1.90

$2.38

5.0

F

t

..

cd

18.-17

20.81

18.20

24.02

20.48

17.93

18.53

15.17

15.94

17.35

12.86

22.78

21.32

18.67

1.9.34

16.38

17.32

$34.86

32.55

29.57

30.06

30.73

33.73

29.58

22.75

19.26

22.75

14.80

22.75

19.89

22.17

24.27

23.16

22.20

11.92

20.93

16.53

22.05

$21.63

45.4

a ro

F

F

i^

4'8

'

5

37.16

47.26

48.06

49.18

52.14

35.82

45.21

38.68

47.58

41.62

48.59

42.03

59.88

45.37

45.23

$56.25

57.67

53.01

53.71

60.88

63.87

5.3e

6.1

6.1

6.1

7.0

6.6

59.65

45.51

38.99

7.2

7.1

7.2

46.92

7.4

42.35

11.0

43.38

6.7

6.5

7.7

7.1

7.7

8.7

11.7

7.8

8.6

7.8

8.2

8.6

8.5

9.3

8.1

10.8

44.44

38.01

36.53

42.31

42.41

51.01

8.9

9.4

8.4

9.1

13.0

8.2

54.47

48.03

49.55

47.53

50.44

9.6

9.7

9.6

11.2

11.2

$47.65

8.0**

100.0

NET RETURNS for capital and management

$39.50

29.92

28.24

26.01

24.17

20.60

19.98

16.99

16.42

15.58

15.37

15.32

15.28

13.62

13.24

11.14

10.81

9.98

9.30

6.70

6.55

6.49

5.79

5.57

4.80

4.04

4.02

3.79

3.78

3.72

3.41

2.87

1.59

1.58

- .39

-2.38

-4.26

-4.72

$10.64

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS

19

On the 1929 -30 crop only six fields out of fifty -one showed less than $20 per acre net returns.

In 1930 -31 only six fields out of thirty -eight cleared more than $20 an acre. Many cotton farmers virtually "went broke" on the 1930 crop.

FACTORS AFFECTING RETURNS

An analysis of factors affecting net returns from the 1930 -31 crop discloses again the importance of yields, prices, and costs.

With low selling prices, however, yield per acre is increased in importance and the cost of growing a crop becomes a much greater factor. Thus, for example, had the lowest four farms in 1930 -31 kept their pre- harvest costs down to or below the group average none of them would have shown a net loss to capital and management.

How a high yield may avert losses can be illustrated in the case of farm 15 where the actual yield was 741 pounds of lint per acre.

Suppose that farmer had produced only the average yield of 474 pounds and received his own price, 9.4 cents for it.

His gross returns would have been $44.57 from lint plus $9.51 from seed (the group average for the seed from 474 pounds of lint) or a total of $54.08. From that amount subtract $51.77, (the sum of the pre- harvest costs of that farm, $30.14, plus $21.63, the group average for harvesting and marketing 474 pounds of lint), and the acre net return for that grower would have been $2.31 instead of $20.60.

In that particular instance, therefore, where the grower had rather high pre- harvest costs and received a price well below average, his exceptionally fine yield might in supposition be credited with earning $18.29 more per acre from each of the

30 acres -a total of almost $550.

In generalizing from the foregoing examples, it would seem that, with growing and harvesting costs as they were in 1930 -31,

Salt River Valley growers of short staple cotton can expect no respectable return for their capital and management from 10 cent cotton unless they produce well above a bale per acre.

THE 1930 -31 PRICE SITUATION

During the 1929 -30 season prices received per pound ranged from 16.2 cents to 19.0 cents, while in 1930 -31 prices ranged from

8.5 cents to 15.8 cents. The small difference in 1929 -30 could be explained on the basis of a quality -price relationship, but the same explanation does not apply the second year.

Beginning during the spring of 1930 cotton prices at Phoenix, Arizona, began to drop.

But several farmers in the coöperating group already had sold, for future delivery, substantial portions of their newly planted crop. Those men are the ones shown in Table 9 to have received prices well above the group average. An extreme example of the influence of such relatively high prices is the case of farm 23 as compared with farm 24.

With only

20 EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146 about half as good a yield the former field netted more than six times as much per acre.

the lint.

That difference was made possible mainly because farm 23 received 7 cents per pound more for

THREE -YEAR AVERAGES WITH UPLAND COTTON

Table 10 contains the summarized averages secured with upland cotton during the three years of the study. A total of one hundred twenty -five fields included averaged 2,441 acres each year. Reference to Figure 1 shows that acreage represented approximately 3 per cent of the total upland acreage in the Salt

River Valley during the period. Average yields for the surveyed farms were approximately a quarter of a bale higher than for the

State as a whole.

One of the most significant changes in pre- harvest costs during the period was in the amount charged to man and horse labor.

The lower value of cotton in 1929 and 1930 tended to cause a reduction in the amount of work done in growing the

crop. A

considerable reduction also was due to efforts of the Agricultural

Extension Service and Experiment Station in developing a changed viewpoint regarding the reasons for cultivation.

During previous years many growers had not realized the main purpose of cultivation was to kill weeds.

Earlier surveys showed much more time required for cultivating than did the present study. Unnecessary cultivations run up costs. Lower prices for cotton since 1928 have helped to establish the practice of killing more weeds during seedbed preparation, then to cultivate only when necessary to keep down weed growth and to prevent the formation of a surface crust.

Certain soil conditions, of course, may demand more frequent cultivations.

During the third year of the study tractors were used much more commonly in place of horses or mules. Water costs were higher in 1930 because of increased rates, while seed costs and taxes were lower than in 1928.

Picking and ginning charges were the same for the first two years. For the season of 1930 -31, however, picking charges were

50 per cent lower and ginning charges were 22 per cent lower.

While the average price to growers dropped 9 cents during the period the costs per pound, exclusive of interest, were only 2.1

cents less the third year resulting in net returns which were but approximately 22 per cent as much as for the 1928 -29 season.

Further discussion and comparison of upland cotton, with Pima and with the other crops studied, may be found in a following section beginning on page 47.

ALFALFA

There are definite records* which show that alfalfa has been grown on a commercial scale in Arizona since 1878.

By 1910,

*Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 73.

Ó v

F

*' Ó,

Ú

0)

ÿÑ

44'8

H

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS

OO.,MCtO.LtO

riObWrlw t`

.-1

" oó d,

MN.4N,

.-id'Ódi-i

M r.

O ri

.° o

ó

O r,

N

¿ 6o

M rl

A ei

H

H

1

W

'VC,-4,0'4.

t.t-C..

4d.N

-i,

.ti

C-NtOOWOC-Wt.

NtOOIQ<ONOiN

O.UMd. 'N

'

CO

U} d

M

ä000OG0W°

WMO.MC-

CCV.00V

.-,

'

W

W

O

.O

Qh

V

CO

O.

m

.0

O

CO

Y}

O

M r,

WO

MO

.4,

N

Or

A

V, UW'I

CCu

W

N

W

.O

¡¡} e.,

0.4.9.

WrV MO WOW O

WWWdWONCC'

N M

En

M c0

OMOMH

ONdNr,

N

M m

C

-!,

V ad dt m rl y}

O

N

~ r,O oW

O

't`ÓCi

40 .0

ulen

.n

W

CO

O+

öi

,-1

W

Od,NfdW d

00,000000,0000,V00."

.LidiridirÌ^i

1,4

Fn

0 0 8 4

N

N d,

OWON

-

CO

N

W

.O

0-

U t..

CO

0 l0

CO

69

W n c4

A

.O

VNd

MMMW

Ci.fidi

H O r, enöà

.D

H

ó r

H

C-0oceMriN 'di en

O t

CWNW M

M

PlcliD'cl

N

.O

r di

0 ge.

V r.

C r.

H dt d t

9

21

°

á

O

A

óF

á

.o.-.

á ó zE

A

°~ro o

C. w

FO

°á.wO

m

"

PU w c C c" m ro

}v

..4

R c0-

N

,ÿ

áz

ó mpÿó,R,roúE v

ñ

ú bG

M ú d

A

`

7 ro ti m w

.

ro

CO m p d enóo¿,ó

4Cÿ,cnE

ÿ o

E

V v g p ya

°

°

A

ÿ.

á'á

ÿv ro g eo

Cd

C1

E,

á

E z

22

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146 when there were nearly 130,000 acres of irrigated land under cultivation in the Salt River Valley, alfalfa occupied more than half of the total. It held the position of most important crop in point of acreage and value until 'cotton displaced it as a result of high cotton prices immediately following the World War.

Since the war alfalfa has been second only to cotton.

During the recent period of low cotton prices, alfalfa has increased in importance both as to acreage and value in relation to cotton.

Over -cropping to cotton also has reduced yields and influenced an increased production of alfalfa.

Furthermore, except for higher costs for water, alfalfa production entails smaller cash expenses (See Figure 4) than does cotton. The relative importance of alfalfa during the last few years in the Salt River

Valley is shown in Table 27.

In an earlier publication ** concerning recommended cropping systems for the Valley, alfalfa is included in every rotation but one, where it is replaced by sour clover (Melilotus indica) .

Alfalfa fits exceedingly well into two -crop rotations with small grain and into more diversified systems including such truck crops as cantaloupes and head lettuce.

It is used commonly also with a cotton cropping plan to restore yielding ability of the soil and to furnish a summer cash crop or feed for livestock and work animals.

Crop yields and returns indicate that, as a general rule, no other crop should be grown more than four years before the ground is again seeded to alfalfa.

When alfalfa follows cotton in a rotation one difficulty is encountered. The last picking of cotton frequently is not completed before the middle of February.

It is then difficult to get the seedbed fitted and the alfalfa seeded as early as is desired. Delayed spring seedings fail to establish good root systems before warm weather, top growth is retarded, weeds are more prevalent and yields the first year are likely to be disappointing.

The most desirable time to seed alfalfa in the Salt River Valley is during October or early November. That can be done readily when the preceding crop is small grain, or sorghum removed early for silage.

Even sorghums left for grain usually can be harvested in time to get alfalfa seeded during November. Such fall seedings usually produce yields the first harvest year as good as anv succeeding year and the hay is of higher quality.

In the present study of alfalfa costs, data were secured only with established stands. In other words, the detailed tables for

1929 and 1930 and the three -year averages show only what might be termed the growing, harvesting, and marketing costs for hay.

From some unpublished data, supplemented by averages secured and used with other crops in the present study, Table 11 has

* *Arizona Agricultural Extension Service Circular No. 60.

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS

23 been compiled to indicate probable time and cost of operations in preparing an alfalfa seedbed following both cotton and wheat.

Table 11.- Average Time and Cost of Operations in Starting New Seedings of

Alfalfa.

Salt River Valley, Arizona.

Operation

After cotton

Hours per acre

Man Horse

I

After wheat

Hours per acre

Man Horse

Cutting stalks

Plowing

Disking

Harrowing

Floating

Bordering

Seeding

Cleaning ditch

Irrigating

Total hours

Average cost at 1928-30 rate:

30c per, man hour

10c per horse hour

Total

Cost at 1933 rate:

12% c per man hour

5 e per horse hour

Total

Cost for any year: c per man hour e rer horse hour

101/

$ 3.15

$ 1.31

32

$ 3.20

$6.35

$ 1.80

$3.11

4 1/2

11/4

1

$ 3.45

$ 1.44

18

5

4

4 %

3

31/2

1a/4

39%

$ 3.95

$7.40

$ 1.97

$3.41

Ample time between wheat harvest and alfalfa seeding permits more thorough seedbed preparation than does a cotton alfalfa sequence.

twice.

Occasionally, an alfalfa seedbed is plowed

Furthermore, plowing of wheat stubble is done during the hot summer months when man and horse efficiency is not as good as during cool spring weather.

It will be noted also that more man and horse time is allowed for seeding alfalfa after wheat than after cotton. That is true mainly because time is a greater factor in the spring and much more of the seeding after cotton is done in a time -saving manner using a man -operated breast seeder.

Fall seeding, after wheat, is more generally done with a horse -drawn alfalfa drill. While these circumstances increase first year costs, Table 12 shows the increase is not a large factor when spread over the three- to five -year period during which alfalfa occupies the land. Advantages of the wheat -alfalfa sequence, previously mentioned, easily make up for the additional expense. In Table 12 all the seeding costs have been spread over an average four -year period by dividing each item by four.

In Table 12 the amount charged yearly to seedbed preparation, seed and seeding is shown, together with the other expenses of growing and harvesting the hay.

That table may be used in figuring costs incurred from seeding through harvest and market-

24

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146 ing or it may be used for estimating costs in handling established stands.

Table 12.- Average Cost per Acre, Less Interest, of Producing Alfalfa Hay.

Salt River Valley, Arizona.

Expense items

1928 -30

Average

After cotton

1933

Costs

* * **

Costs for any year

* * * **

1928 -30

Average

After wheat

1933

Costs

** **

Starting crop ± 4

Extra water

(1 acre foot)

Seedbed, ate. * -.

Seed **

$ .22

1.59

.79

$2.60

3.81

$ .15

.78

.39

$1.32

3.81

$ .22

1.85

.79

$2.86

3.81

$ .15

.85

.39

$1.39

3.81

Taxes

Growing and

Harvesting

Man labor * * *__

Horse labor * * *

Machinery

Water

Baling

Hauling

5.48

2.45

.82

5.49

9.54

2.36

$29.95

$32.55

2.28

1.23

.62

4.12

7.35

1.18

$20.39

$21.71

5.48

2.45

.82

5.49

9.64

2.36

$29.95

$32.81

Totals

* From Table 11.

Av. amount 17.5 lbs. per acre.

Cost 1928 -30, 18e; 1933, 9c per lb.

* ** From Table 13.

1933 costa estimated.

Blank space may be used in figuring costs for any year.

2.28

1.23

.62

4.12

7.15

1.18

$20.39

$21.78

Costs for any year

* * * **

The reader may note an apparent difference between Tables

11 and 17 in the amount charged to man labor. That difference is readily explained.

In Table 17 the figure is lower because all farms included in the study did not perform the same operations.

In the table on costs of operations, however, the averages were calculated from costs incurred by only the farms which actually performed a given operation.

Average amounts and costs of labor expended for various operations in growing and harvesting established stands of alfalfa are shown in Table 13. Adjustments can be made by interested growers to fit the table to their individual conditions.

During the period of the present study tractors were used in so few haying operations and by so few farmers that no attempt was made to show tractor time for the various operations. Labor for mowing and irrigating consumes an average of half the time spent in growing and harvesting the crop.

While the former operation is greatly reduced in amount of time by tractor use, the irrigating time factor is not affected.

THE 1929 CROP

Twenty -one fields averaging almost 65 acres in size were included in the 1929 study.

Detailed data are presented in Table

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS

25

14 showing an average gross acre income of $68.73 from hay and pasture sales.

With an average cost of $27.48 per acre there remained $41.25 per acre to cover the expense of establishing the crop, to pay interest or rental charges, and to reimburse the grower for his management.

Table 13.- Average Time and Cost of Operations in Producing Alfalfa Hay from Established Stands.

Salt River Valley, Arizona, 1928 -30.

OPERATION

Mowing

Raking

Bucking -in

Bucking to baler

Re- raking

Ditch up -keep

Irrigating

Total

Average cost at 1928 -30 rate:

30e per man hour

10c per horse hour

Cost at 1933 rate:

121e per man hour

5 e per horse hour

Cost for any year: c per man hour c per horse hour

Ars. required per acre

Man

Horse

4

214

2

2%

1

11,

5

1514

2

5

1

8

41/,

4

24 %

$5.48

$2.28

$2.45

$1.23

Net returns in 1929 show a difference of about $40 between the highest and the lowest farm.

It is not possible to select any single item of cost which shows a consistent difference between the high - return and the low- return farms.

Most of the higher profit fields had yields of 4 tons or more per acre.

Those high yields, of course, increased harvesting and marketing costs, thereby raising total acre costs in relation to the fields producing low yields.

It is sometimes suggested that larger fields show lower costs per acre. Such differences in acreage as existed, however, evidently were not significant factors. Nine fields averaging about

32 acres (ranging from 18 to 40) showed average growing and harvesting costs of $15.34, while another nine fields averaging about 103 acres (ranging from 50 to 160) had costs averaging

$15.53 for the same operations.

PASTURING ALFALFA

The renting of alfalfa fields to livestock men for pasturing is a common practice in the Salt River Valley. Some growers who are interested in producing market hay confine the pasturing time to the late fall and winter months.

Still others take the first two cuttings for hay, pasture off one or two summer crops,

26

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146 and make the final fall crop into hay. This practice cuts down on labor in midsummer and confines the hay making to the cuttings which will produce the best quality hay.

The charge for pasturing is figured on a livestock basis of a certain rate per head per day. From those rates the coöperating growers calculated the acre income from pasturing. The average

Table 14, Part 1.- ALFALFA: Income, Expenses, and Net Returns per Acre for

Capital and Management. Salt River Valley, Arizona, 1929.

GROSS RETURNS

Man labor d

G

1 w

W

C b Ó d

10

15

3

5

20

8

13

11

14

9

2

17

21

1

19

7

16

18

12

6

4

Ay.

80

160

50

35

40

40

140

60

34

40

40

160

80

26

140

42

20

48

80

18

50

64.9

6.2

5.6

6.5

5.0

4.6

4.2

4.5

3.2

4.3

3.0

4.2

2.9

4.0

2.5

4.1

3.4

8.0

3.3

3.5

3.2

2.5

3.99

Percent of total exr'ense c o) +4

..Gi

M

P,á

816.75

14.98

14.00

16.25

15.85

17.18

16.89

16.00

16.04

13.83

15.91

16.32

15.73

16.98

15.00

15.11

14.47

17.54

33.08

12.62

16.48

$15.58

Ó

., i.

F

fa

2

.'7

$104.24

83.25

90.85

81.40

73.10

72.89

76.73

51.28

89.57

41.50

67.66

48.18

62.53

41.77

61.20

51.25

44.11

57.69

45.45

39.98

41.03

$62.17

$12.50

3.64

1.70

11.51

7.52

16.50

20.00

11.65

11.26

6.50

9.00

8.55

9.27

8.04

$6.56

W

P-

$104.24

95.75

94.49

83.10

84.61

80.41

76.73

67.78

6937

61.50

67.66

59.83

62.53

53.02

61.20

57.75

53.11

57.69

54.00

49.25

49.07

$68.73

14

11%

14%

14%

14%

10%

14%

18%

23

17

17%

18

11%

12

21%

7%

17

18%

16

14%

11

15%

Ú

$6.92

5.06

5.19

5.40

3.48

3.56

6.38

2.36

4.17

3.51

4.34

4.44

4.40

3.21

4.38

6.68

5.08

5.46

4.78

4.45

3.30

$4.54

16.5

income from pasturing, based on only the fourteen farms which rented their fields in 1929, was $9.84 per acre.

In Table 14 the average is based on all twenty -one farms in order to make the average total gross acre income equal the sum of the average incomes from hay and pasture.

Fields pastured produced a slightly lower average hay yield, but their costs per acre and per ton were sufficiently lower to leave greater net returns than the non - pastured fields. An additional feature resulting from pasturing is the increase in soil f ertility due to the manure scattered over the fields by grazing animals. While it is difficult to measure accurately the value of that feature it is recognized to be of great importance in maintaining the productive capacity of pastured fields.

27 SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS

THE "QUALITY- PRICE -NET RETURN" RELATIONSHIP

During past years in the Salt River Valley a considerable tonnage of alfalfa hay has been sold through various marketing channels and ultimately is purchased and fed at points far removed from the Valley.

To facilitate such a procedure there must be common standards of quality adopted by producers and

Table 14, Part 2.-ALFALFA: Income, Expenses, and Net Returns per Acre for Capital and Management. Salt River Valley, Arizona, 1929.

EXPENSES

-

Other

Total

NET RETURNS

Equipment i t

M i ú

É

á c

4g

8,08

2.20

1.61

3.03

3.88

8.08

2.85

2.87

1.95

$4.00

8.42

2.87

8.53

$1.50

1.87

........

1.49

1.72

, ;

1.90

4.80

1.00

1.87

2.00.

2.77

2.19

8.24

.

1.05

$3.01

10.9

°

3

$6.30

6.88

5.67

4.31

3.74

2.94

4.13

4.18

8.87

3.94

5.06

3.68

2.44

8.06

4.69

6.60

4.15

7.87

4.10

2.92

8.47

$4.39

16.0

et m

$15.24

12.50

15.24

12.27

14.59

` 10.18

11.13

7.37

10.41

7.20

9.78

6.64

9.64

5.85

9.39

7.50

7.01

8.06

8.34

7.45

8.34

$9.72

35.4

á x

$1.55

"

4.61

4.24

1.82

8.85

2.17

3.00

2.13

1.06

8.98

1.28

4.08

1.52

1.64

1.14

1.24

$1.90

6.9

m

F

$4.13

3.75

4.58

4.17

4.20

3.75

3.38

4.50

8.60

2.11

4.19

8.75

4.58.

4.19

4.39

2.50

3.75

3.38

.

4.69

4.58

4.55

$3.94

14.3

ñb

$38.14

31.81

34.72

29.68

32.11

28.29

31.14

23.24

28.83

21.76

28.27

21.76

28.00

1934

28.44

25.5.47

24.ts4

29.44

25.90

22.82

22.85

$27.48

100.00

á°

$6.15

5.68

5.34

6.94

6.98

6.73

6.92

7.26

6.70

7.25

6.78

7.50

7.00

7.82

6.94

7.52

8.28

8.92

7.40

7.13

9.14

$6.89""

For capital and management

$66.10

63.94

59.77

53.42

52.50

52.12

45.59

44.54

40.74

39.74

39.39

38.07

34.53

33.48

32.76

32.18

28.27

28.25

28.10

26.43

26.22

$41.25

*Sold in field.

" "Average total expense divided by average yield.

buyers. While the present Federal Hay Grades were not adopted in the Salt River Valley until 1928 there had been standards of quality in use prior to that time.

Not all hay sold in the Valley is graded but quality is rather definitely measured in relation to the Federal grades and growers are rewarded for producing good hay.

Table 15 published* before the Federal grades were adopted shows the importance of producing hay high in quality.

*Arizona Agricultural Extension Service Circular No. 59.

28 EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146

The accompanying chart, Figure 3, shows also how prices of alfalfa hay at Phoenix, Arizona, have fluctuated from month to month during the years included in this study.

Table 15.-A Comparison of Returns Received for Different Grades of Alfalfa in the Salt River Valley from 1922 to 1927, Inclusive.*

Average price received by Association

Average price less Association expense

Value of loose hay in the fields ""

No. 1

$17.64

15.27

11.92

Standard

$15.55

13.18

9.83

No. 2

$13.28

10.91

7.56

No. 3

$10.04

7.67

4.17

Data furnished by Roosevelt Hay Growers' Association

"Value of loose hay in field obtained by subtracting combined baling and hauling cost from the average price less Association expense.

The time of selling hay, as well as its quality, therefore, was an important factor in determining prices received by growers.

The price - per -ton columns in Tables 14 and 16 show wide differences.

Unfortunately it is not possible to tell the relative part

Fig. 3.- Monthly average sale price for U. S. No. 1 alfalfa hay at Phoenix,

Arizona, from April, 1928, through April, 1931. Data furnished by a Salt

River Valley hay marketing organization.

played by the two factors.

It is striking, however, to compare the variations in hay prices with the lack of variation in prices received for the grain crops.

Two farms in Table 14 illustrate the importance of either quality or time of selling, or both, as factors in net returns. Farms 7 and 17 produced the same average yield and both were pastured.

Farm 17, however, for one reason or another received $16 per

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS

29 ton while farm 7 received only $12.62. With practically the same costs per acre, farm 17, for hay only, returned $11.30 more per acre than farm 7. Returns from pasture sales also were considerably higher for the former field.

THE 1930 CROP

In 1930, eighteen fields, comprising a total of 1,220 acres, were studied. The detailed data are presented in Table 16.

The average yield was almost a quarter of a ton higher in 1930 than in 1929, yet the average price received by growers was $3.17 per ton less than the previous year. Returns from pasturing also were lower in 1930.

These conditions were coupled with higher costs per acre due mainly to a large increase in the water rate. The 1928-

29 rate of $1.50 for each acre foot of water was increased, due to threatened shortage in 1929 -30, to $2.17 per acre foot for the first

2 acre feet and $1.50 for each additional acre foot. The result of these changes in prices and costs was a drop of $17.05 in average net returns.

The range in net returns in 1930 was also much greater than the previous year.

Once more the variations in net returns can be explained on no single factor basis. All three main factors were important, namely: yield, price per ton, and cost per acre.

Generally speaking.

when two of those three factors were favorable net returns were good. Examine, for instance, farm 1. The cost per acre was considerably above, average as a result of more water being used and the high yield naturally increased the baling charge. With the highest yield in the group, however, and good quality hay opportunely sold so as to bring a high price per ton, that field showed a net return of $56.98 per acre, exclusive of pasture sales.

Farm 6 had about the same costs per acre and harvested only half a ton less hay per acre.

But with that hay bringing $3.80

less per ton the net return per acre (no pasture sales) was only

$29.04.

A comparison of farms 12 and 2 illustrates the effect of yield differences when costs and prices were about alike.

Farm 12 spent about $1.25 less per acre to grow a crop which sold for only

13 cents more per ton. But a difference of 1.65 tons in yield accounted for most of the $21.37 difference in net returns. Neither of those fields was pastured.

Then to complete the picture, suppose farm 17, with its yield and price about average, had kept the costs per acre at the group average ($31.91) instead of running them up to $42.05.

That farmer would have had about $2,000 more in net returns from his

200 acres than the records show for him.

Thus, again in 1930, the results demonstrate the importance of good yields of high quality hay produced at reasonably low costs and sold as opportunely as possible. Keeping down costs is a problem of good management in making the most effective use of labor and equipment in growing, harvesting and marketing the

30

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146 crop.

Yield and quality depend on several factors.

Assuming reasonable soil fertility, good yields of alfalfa should follow if quality seed is sown on a well prepared seedbed with land so levelled as to secure desirable water penetration. Results at the

Mesa Experiment Station indicate that good penetration of water

Table 16, Part 1.-ALFALFA: Income, Expenses, and Net Returns per Acre for

Capital and Management. Salt River Valley, Arizona, 1930.

GROSS RETURNS

Man labor

G,

`

°

; m

..

M

C d

G

1

10

12

7

6

14

8

9

17

18

2

4

3

5

13

16

15

11

Av.

32

50

80

200

16

80

110

18

80

34

40

80

125

32

50

105

60

28

.

5.97

5.44

4.92

3.82

5.48

5.07

4.87

4.45

3.99

3,89-

4.17

4.36

2.86

3.27

3.44

4.72

3.54

1.88

67.7 ,

4.23

Percent of total expense "

.Vi

á, á

$16.19

14.99

11.97

16.01

12.39

13.02

10.49

14.24

10.44

10.77

11.21

12.18

14.05

11.84

11.72

9.79

8.63

9.73

$12.41

O i.

tsNi,q

$96.74

81.51

58.92

61.16

67.85

66.10

51.05

63.37

41.64

41.89

46.78

53.14

40.18

38.77

40.29

46.24

30.58

18.08

$52.46

c°'.

O m

á

$ 6.00

11.25

2.62

8.36

9.37

10.87.

7.74

8.00

3.56

.

$3.65

F

$102.74

92.76

58.92

63.78

67.85

72.46

60.42

63.37

52.51

49.63

46.78

61.14

43.74

38.77

40.29

46.24

30.58

18.08

$56.11

a y.

16

16%

9%

21%

18%

18

17%

20

8%

14%

19%

19%

20%

20%

18

29%

18%

26%

18%

Y

Ú

$5.93

5.93

6.10

6.09

5.40

8.92

6.52

8.05

4.79

4.98

2.81

6.54

5.56

8.92

5.14

5.98

2.52

4.85

$5.47

17.1

on the heavier types of soil can be secured best on land brought, as nearly as practicable, to a dead level. Every soil situation, however, presents its problem of how to secure the desired water penetration.

Quality of hay produced from well grown alfalfa depends upon cutting at the proper stage and upon handling it during curing in such a way as to preserve color and prevent harshness of stems and shattering of leaves from over drying or too rapid drying.

AVERAGES FOR THREE -YEAR PERIOD

A comparison of the averages for all three years is presented in

Table 17.

No consistent changes are indicated, but the sharp decline in the 1930 price coupled with increased costs, especially for water, so completely offset the better yield for that year that a marked reduction in net returns to capital and management resulted. The three -year averages, together with the relative importance of the various cost items, are shown in Figures 4 and

5 in the general comparison of all the crops studied.

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS

31

WHEAT

Although wheat is far out

- ranked in total acreage by cotton and alfalfa in the Salt River Valley, it occupies an important place in the farm plans for crop rotation and summer cash in-

Table 16, Part 2.- ALFALFA: Income, Expenses, and Net Returns per Acre for

Capital and Management. Salt River Valley, Arizona, 1930.

Equipment

EXPENSES

Other

Total

NET RETURNS

For capital and management

ám d '

RE t+

4

Ú V

M N

F E

$4.10

3.32

2.23

3.49

3.16

6.00

3.66

5.60

2.18

2.77

.79

2.11

3.32

2.45

1.91

2.43

.61

2.93

$3.86

12.1

$3.83

1.80

2.94

5.62

2.34

$9.62

4.09

6.97

7.51

9.08

9.71

6.97

6.13

7.40

7.84

5.32

9.76

7.48

5.24

6.03

8.84

4.87

4.87

$7.10

22.3

Ç

$13.74

14.95

4.76

9.17

12.87

11.67

11.20

10.68

9.37

8.75

9.80

10.25

6.72

7.60

8.59

11.10

8.49

4.37

$9.67

30.3

F

$2.99

3.72"

1.91

4.11

2.54

3.34

2.09

3.27

1.43

1.64

8.44

3.30

1.86

$1.92

6.0

Sold in field.

**Average total expense divided by average yield.

$3.38

3.75

4.12

4.55

4.19

4.65

4.19

4.13

2.58

4.17

3.75

4.50

4.65

4.55

2.73

4.50

2.11

3.50

$3.89

12.2

á

$39.76

38.59

24.18

32.72

38.81

43.49

31.54

37.93

28.05

28.51

27.50

42.05

29.16

25.40

27.84

36.15

20.94

21.88

1.91

100.0

w

7.83

8.59

9.64

10.19

7.77

8.09

7.66

5.91

11.76

$6.66

7.09

4.91

8.56

7.08

8.58

6.48

8.52

7.03

$7.54 ""

$62.98

54.17.

34.74

31.06

29.04

28.97

28.88

25.44

24.46

21.12

19.28

19.09

14.58

13.37

12.45

10.09

9.64

-3.80

$24.20

come.

Soft white spring wheat is the principal type grown,

Baart being by far the leading variety. The crop usually is seeded during the two months period from November 15 to January 15, depending largely on what crop it follows.

For those readers who are not familiar with some practices and situations existing in the Salt River Valley, a brief explanation is given here.

Practically all small grains are harvested with combine harvesters at a contracted acre rate. The tables show how little variation is made in harvesting costs to allow for differences in yields. The grain is sacked for market so differences in yields are reflected in acre costs for sacks and twine. Hauling costs per acre also vary with yields.

Another rather strange situation is indicated in the prices received for the grain by growers. Most grain is bought by local mills or by feed houses. The mills bring into the area considerable hard red wheat to blend with the local soft white wheat

32

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146 o

48,1j d

U U cd niW

O000eH000

M O> ri W 01 0) 01

0 ti wo ti a ti r-i m ci o ti

4'J

01

H3

LOO O) 0i

KJ ti 04

AVY?1OlNO

wolrn. mrna) n

65, m

VWVJm0101oeH

1f1[eHm10>Of

401 4o-IC:

60cro rif

ÿ

0

Table 18.-WHEAT: Income, Expenses, and Net Returns per Acre for Capital and Management. Salt River Valley, Arizona, 1929.

GROSS RETURNS

Man labor a> c3i i L.

y

ß+ ..

$2.25

2.35

2.25

2.25

2.'25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.35

2.25

$2.25

ci gC

E e3

[a f-.

U

6

1890

1699

1755

1755

1638

1571

1406

1546

1400

1584

1608

1675

1663

1350

1257

1993

2112

1945

2000

2000

2160

1853

1989

1890

1904

1831

1668

960

771

2900

2500

2384

2363

2294

2380

2240

`1.160

2246

2349

2083

2136

2240

2274

2085

2010

2085

2048

1303

40

116

40

150

43

60

40

42

17

35

74

65

90

45

60

51

55

24

40

40

60

24

26

80

130

50

35

40

80

70

18

160

30

75

14

100

32

26

50

220

27

100

37

50

130

80

18

61.6

Av.

Percent of total expense

2 p

17

40

15

27

37

33

44

14

25

29

11

31

7

45

41

19

6

4

39

13

12

10

42

36

46

43

20

28

9

38

34

23

32

22

47

35

21

8

1

18

24

3

26

16

30

*Average total expense divided by average yield.

m

G

I-

°!

0

'*".

$65.25

56.25

53.64

53.17

51.61

53.55

50.40

48.60

50.53

52.35

46.91

48.06

1114

41/2

314

5

8

614

6%

5

43/4

71/2

4%

5

50.40

5?4

51.16

10%

46.91

6%

45.23

46.91

46.08

614

634

4 %

44.84

47.52

43.76

45.00

l01/4

45.00

48.60

514

9Y4

41.69

44.75

4252

314

71/2

5%

6%

714

61/2

31.64

34.78

31.50

35.64

36.18

37.69

37.42

30.38

23.28

21.60

17.35

42.84

41.20

37.53

5>y4

314

614

38.03

38.23

39.49

71j4

71/4

81/4

39.49

12

36.86

35.34

71/2

7

5

8

414

7

634

121/4

1114

6g4

714

41/a

61,¢

$42.82

6%

ÿ o

.97

2.23

1.67

3.08

1.60

2.95

1.92

2.16

1.94

1.72

.97

1.88

2.21

2.19

2.50

3.59

2.21

2.10

1.53

2.39

1.25

2.12

2.00

3.68

3.37

2.05

2.15

1.32

1.95

$3.36

1.34

.97

1.50

2.39

1.88

2.04

1.47

1.46

2.22

1.43

1.48

1.73

3.25

2.01

1.90

2.02

1.43

$2.03

9.6

EXPENSES

Harvest Total Pre-harvest

Equipment Other v

¡,

t

°

m

H b

F

(

0

V

R

-,5 il w m

ú

O a x

E

O

F s~ v

O

6

F

O

F

7

Cf) c. r ul Y c3

N

O

F

$3.08

.36

.07

.63

5.42

.53

.71

.09

.97

1.77

5.42

4.20

1.19

1.48

.75

.11

2.64

.53

.36

.44

.27

.53

.53

.71

.36

.61

.45

1.44

5.24

2.95

2.88

.36

.36

.53

.44

1.50

3.83

1.95

3.45

3.30

1.80

3.56

8.69

.27

4.40

2.10

.59

$3.35

].83

2.75

2.26

1.50

2.27

2.03

2.05

3.66

1.32

2.36

3.00

4.80

2.19

2.88

2.78

2.10

1.88

2.10

3.12

2.92

3.00

$1.65

2.05

3.04

2.03

2.64

2.62

.83

2.58

3.30

.90

1.76

2.73

1.65

.63

1.46

2.24

3.18

.94

2.18

2.81

2.27

2.49

1.13

2.80

2.63

1.61

2.18

1.30

1.10

1.46

3.02

2.80

1.94

1.45

.63

3.28

2.48

1.65

2.96

2.16

3.84

1.32

$2.24

1.98

.63

.77

4.28

1.19

2.67

1.65

.94

2.96

2.10

1.50

1.50

2.31

2.10

$2.03

$2.74

1.73

3.84

4.01

2.10

2.04

2.36

3.25

3.54

3.16

2.52

3.85

2.04

3.39

2.52

2.04

2.52

3.16

3.84

3.85

3.25

16.03

15.75

13.38

11.89

13.59

11.83

11.54

14.73

11.84

3.90

3.51

3.72

3.75

3.88

3.52

3.25

3.85

1.66

3.54

3.88

2.36

2.23

2.79

13.32

13.13

17.08

12.72

14.98

13.41

4.01

13.33

3.84

-

11.37

1.85

12.31

2.36

3.25

4.04

13.78

14.04

15.74

2.10

2.42

3.88

1.85

2.04

2.36

15.64

14.02

13.18

10.89

13.89

12.18

14.04

14.61

18.39

19.67

13.48

14.37

11.26

14.35

$14.42

9.89

11.54

11.39

13.77

15.87

13.82

11.49

12.57

15.18

11.22

11.60

$3.02

$13.58

$3.00

2.84

4.05

2.00

2.34

2.70

3.60

3.58

4.05

3.45

3.30

3.00

2.70

2.60

3.30

3.21

3.20

3.45

4.05

3.00

3.00

2.60

4.05

3.00

2.70

4.38

3.25

4.05

4.05

2.84

3.00

3.58

L80

2.55

2.60

3.00

2.84

3.00

3.60

3.00

3.00

3.00

2.25

3.00

3.00

3.75

3.75

$3.15

$3.35

2.89

2.75

2.30

2.44

2.25

2.31

2.31

2.50

2.14

2.30

2.18

2.20

2.12

1.96

1.95

1.96

2.03

2.73

2.65

2.75

2.59

2.50

2.60

2.71

2.41

2.47

2.59

2.63

2.41

2.32

2.41

2.37

2.03

1.89

1.82

1.62

1.79

1.62

1.83

1.86

1.94

1.92

1.56

1.45

1.10

.89

$2.20

.

4.50

5.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

5.00

5.00

4.00

5.00

4.00

4.00

3.00

3.00

5.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

4.00

5.00

4.00

$5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

2.50

3.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

5.00

4.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

4.50

5.00

5.00

4.50

4.50

$4.45

m

P.

f+

O

W

.

.

.

.

9

. 0

.

4

0

7

0

.

.

.

7

:5

5

..2

.:1

. 9

.

.

.

16

9

1

8

3

$1.

5

1.,

5

1.

3

1. 8

1.

4

.

i

1.

°.

1.13

1.:

5

1.

9

1.15

.

7

.:0

1.'

0

1.18

.

..6

0

.'4

.

5

1.

0

.

:3

1.

2

1.14

..5

.:7

1.

4

1.14

1.10

1.14

1.12

$24.22

19.03

20.72

20.30

20.06

22.33

20.53

19.07

21.52

24.01

18.67

19.92

$ .83

.76

.87

.86

.87

.94

.92

.88

.96

1.02

.89

.93

22.29

24.52

20.83

1.00

1.08

1.00

19.21

.95

21.04

'

1.01

20.22

.99

20.03

23.22

20.06

21.43

21.64

25.64

19.42

22.68

20.53

1.00

1.10

1.03

1.07

1.08

1.19

1.05

1.14

1.09

20.98

19.59

19.10

20.40

20.85

23.12

23.19

20.72

20.79

17.21

20.45

17.50

21.66

22.27

26.17

26.90

20.72

21.45

1.10

1.07

1.14

1.21

1.23

1.32

1.32

1.26

1.32

L22

1.32

1.25

1.37

1.38

1.56

1.62

1.53

1.71

17.21

20.13

1.79

2.61

$ .

0

$7.55

$21.14

$1.11*

6.26

8.77

7.45

7.32

7.45

8.39

8.49

8.49

8.22

8.11

8.51

8.58

$9.80

9.14

9.18

8.91

6.29

6.46

6.71

7.58

8.95

8.83

7.45

8.32

6.70

7.70

7.12

7.65

8.22

6.79

6.62

6.81

7.38

7.55

6.70

7.61

6.32

6.56

5.32

7.82

7.66

7.78

7.23

7.24

7.08

5.96

5.78

9.6

14.2

64.2

.

21.1

10.4

gi

35.8

100.00

15.9

14.9

NET

RETURNS

For capital and management

$41.03

37.22

32.92

32.87

31.55

31.22

29.87

29.53

29.01

28.84

28.24

28.14

28.11

26.64

26.08

26.02

25.87

25.86

24.81

24.30

23.70

23.57

23.36

22.96

22.27

22.07

21.99

21.86

21.61

18.43

17.63

17.38

16.37

16.30

16.14

14.55

14.43

14.33

14.00

13.98

13.91

11.52

1052

9.66

6.83

439

- 2.78

$21.68

_

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS

33 for a higher grade bread flour. Distance away from central markets permits grain buyers to establish a price for local wheat which is based only on average quality and little or no attempt is made to determine the actual grades on grains purchased.

When any price difference is made it is always downward and generally it is for excess "dockage" or for smut.

Growers, furthermore, are not equipped to store their wheat in anticipation of improved prices. The entire crop, therefore, is dumped on the market in a few days time. The growers go so far as to dispose of their entire crop, making it necessary to buy back seed for the next year.

The grain is marketed in sacks, which are an expense to the grower, and the sacks again must be paid for when seed grain is purchased.

It is because of these rather peculiar marketing conditions that all growers are shown in the tables to have received the same prices for the various grains.

Wheat generally is seeded after alfalfa, sorghum or lettuce.

When it follows alfalfa or sorghum, the seedbed can be plowed and fitted early enough so that wheat can be sown during Decem-

But reduced yields of small grains following sorghums ber.

to a considerable extent have discouraged that crop sequence.

The best yields of Baart wheat in the Salt River Valley usually are secured from plantings made between December 10 and

January 5.

The fall lettuce crop often is not fully removed before about January 15, which delays wheat seeding beyond the best date. The "tail end" of the lettuce crop, however, usually meets so much competition from the California crop that its value is low and it could well be sacrificed to make way for wheat planting. Some growers produce wheat only. These men water the land after harvesting the wheat, then Johnson grass and other weeds volunteer and furnish summer pasture, which may be rented. Wheat can follow itself without too serious reductions in yields if this method is followed judiciously.

The data secured with wheat cover the three years 1928, 1929, and 1930, and include a total of one hundred twenty -six fields. The detailed data for the individual fields are presented in Tables 18 and 19 for 1929 and 1930. The summaries only for 1928 are shown in Table 20, which contains averages for all three years.

THE 1929 WHEAT DATA

The importance of yields in determining differences in net returns is brought out strikingly in Table 18 for 1929. For comparative purposes, the eight high return fields have been contrasted with the eight low return fields.

Average pre- harvest acre costs' differ by only $2.25 and total costs by $1.28, yet the difference in average net returns was $24.78.

Obviously, costs of production were but a small factor in the difference. The extra yield of the

34

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146 high return group accounted for $23.51 of the difference, while the lower costs of the high return group accounted for but $1.28 of the total amount.

With difference in yield eliminated, variations in costs are seen to be important. Attention is called to farms 46 and 9 whose yields were practically alike. Farm 9, however, spent $7.36 more to bring the crop to harvest. While farm 9 had a lower expense for water and seed, its costs for labor, power and machinery, and taxes were considerably higher.

Both farms performed similar operations, farm 9 used horses while farm 46 used a tractor. More efficient use of power and machinery, therefore, may explain the lower costs of the latter farm.

This comparison between two farms producing similar yields, demonstrates how necessary it is to maintain low costs, while the previous comparison emphasizes the greater influence of good yields.

Had all costs been eliminated for the low yield group their average return still would have been less than the average actual net return of the eight farms getting the good yields.

THE 1930 WHEAT DATA

19.

Detailed farm by farm expenses for 1930 are contained in Table

Although the average yield in 1930 exceeded that of 1929 by

71 pounds, yet, because of the lower market prices for wheat, gross returns were less.

It is apparent, further, that with the exception of seed costs, all other pre- harvest expenses were higher in 1930. The average cost of producing 100 pounds of grain was the same, $1.11 for both years.

Pre -harvest costs showed a considerably wider range in 1930 than in 1929 and the general average total expense was higher.

The result of the lower gross income and higher costs was an average net return for 1930 of $4.19 less than for 1929. If no grower had been allowed anything for his own labor, none would have shown any actual loss.

And further, had half the taxes been charged to another crop where wheat was grown in a combination or so- called double -cropping system, most growers would have had some money in the pocket even after allowing for acreage rental or interest charges.

THREE -YEAR AVERAGES FOR WHEAT

The three -year averages for wheat are included in Table 20. It is evident that there was no significant change in production costs during the three years and that the 1930 price drop was the greatest factor in determining net returns received to reimburse the grower for his capital and management. Taxes, over the period, showed a regular increase, while harvesting charges decreased.

The position of wheat in relation to the other crops studied is

Table 19.- WHEAT: Income, Expenses, and Net Returns per Acre for Capital and Management. Salt River Valley, Arizona, 1930.

GROSS RETURNS

Man labor

0q

Gai m

C

-p R

P+.6

25

13

16

14

28

2

21

35

30

23

26

12

5

17

29

84

24

7

31'

27

11

8

9

3

32

33

15

10

19

6

20

4

22

18

1

Av.

64.8

1350

1620

1620

1639

1447

1504

1575

1500

1619

1042

1012

2200

1893

1854

1890

2322

1750

2158

1820

1820

1732

2186

1779

2654

2587

2384

2568

2700

2295

2603

2430

2585

2585

2430

1939

1974

Percent of total expense

9

40

35

35

30

33

11

215

219

40

10

40

20

65

65

70

80

50

20

30

14

120

222

5

60

270

25

18

18

30

16

180

40

100

54

*Average total expense divided by average yield.

á m Q

0..i n

$2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

$2.00

m

P.

.T.

634

534

61,

63 a

101/4

5

11

63¢

8

7§4

73'

31/4

7%

5

2%

11

5%

43

121/4

61/4

5%

41/4

13

P

3%

121/4

9%

7%

63/4

9

6

814

101.

5

7 Y4

7%

F

$53.08

51.74

47.68

44.00

37.86

37.08

37.80

46.44

35.00

43.16

36.40

36.40

34.64

43.72

35.58

27.00

32.40

32.40

51.36

54.00

45.90

52.06

48.60

51.70

51.70

48.60

38.78

32.78

28.94

30.08

3130

30.00

32.38

20.84

20.24

$39.48

...+

)

$2.00

1.71

1.87

1.97

3.06

1.48

1.70

3.27

1.38

3.66

1.89

1.68

1.26

3.91

2.70

3.28

1.96

2.36

2.29

2.27

.94

2.33

1.49

.80

1.10

3.65

2.85

2.33

2.00

2.73

1.79

2.58

3.13

1.52

2.32

$2.21

10.0

Pre -harvest

Equipment ms cd á me d .0

s xi E o2

.q

e cd

E, E

$ .80

1.31

.33

.53

4.97

1.96

4.76

.13

.80

1.07

.53

.52

.53

.44

.13

1.96

2.40

1.60

4.80

.80

.60

.67

.76

4.00

.75

5.15

3.68

.63

.53

4.40

.04

1.32

5.40

.49

.15

$3 46

15 7

$2.47

1.92

2.85

3.60

2.14

2.47

1.30

8.65

1.13

3.75

3.37

1.83

3.05

3.27

3.75

.64

3.38

1.53

.74

2.18

1.92

.54

1.35

4.40

r

Q

3.53

4.07

2.38

4.53

3.39

1.91

2.71

3.46

2.89

3.61

3.07

2.03

1.81

4.07

1.28

2.26

4.16

3.61

3.25

.99

2.71

3.55

1.79

1.81

4.73

2.17

$2.57

1.36

2.35

1.90

3.66

1.81

2.85

1.81

5.09

$2.83

13.0

EXPENSES

NET

RETURNS

Other so

E.

$1.67

3.88

2.50

3.85

3.40

2.78

1.72

3.85

2.50

4.08

4.10

3.85

4.10

1.66

3.45

4.65

4.15

3.85

4.00

4.08

4.75

4.87

4.10

2.73

4.19

2.50

2.50

2.50

2.36

3.60

4.35

4.10

2.70

2.73

1.72

$3.37

15.3

É

16.05

11.37

10.81

11.92

21.45

12.25

18.95

15.52

15.57

13.58

22.83

15.30

11.60

16.56

15.74

$12.21

10.66

11.97

14.10

17.79

9.83

15.61

12.58

16.80

17.32

16.90

9.99

16.34

15.63

15.81

16.49

16.31

16.23

11.80

14.60

$14.80

67.3

b ro

$2.70

2.40

3.00

1.80

3.30

2.85

3.60

3.00

3.00

3.45

3.60

1.80

3.15

3.00

2.15

3.00

2.70

1.80

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.05

3.00

2.70

3.90

3. 0

3.30

2.70

3.60

3.00

2.55

3.00

2.55

$2.93

13.3

.0

m

Ú A

$4.50

5.00

1.85

4.00

3.50

4.00

5.00

5.00

4.00

5.00

4.50

5.00

4.50

4.00

5.00

4.50

5.00

4.00

5.00

4.00

4.00

6.00

5.00

5.00

3.00

4.10

5.00

4.50

3.00

4.00

5.00

4.00

7.00

4.00

5.00

$4.43

20.2

o m

0

Ú2ÿ

2.13

1.78

1.76

1.83

2.24

1.74

2.09

1.78

1.83

1.72

2.12

1.66

$2.57

2.45

2.28

3.17

2.62

2.23

2.53

2.36

2.49

2.45

2.36

1.88

1.21

1.37

L58

1.58

1.43

1.49

1.56

1.50

1.62

1.01

.97

$1.92

8.7

Harvest Total

N

$1.34

1.29

.95

1.28

1.35

1.15

1.04

.85

1.49

1.29

.44

.78

.44

.95

.84

.94

.70

.70

1.08

.91

.91

.87

.43

.89

.54

.49

.49

.82

.58

.75

.47

.75

.65

.52

.51

$ .84

3.8

a

Pm.

$20.62

19.40

17.03

22.55

25.26

17.21

24.18

20.79

24.78

26.06

24.20

17.65

23.12

18.10

18.41

19.18

29.39

18.69

27.12

22.21

22.31

21.17

30.38

22.85

16.35

22.52

22.81

23.24

20.64

22.05

23.52

2256

2550

17.33

21.08

$21.99

100.00

E

7.59

7.55

7.55

4.75

5.96

7.07

6.90

5.01

6.24

7.03

6.25

9.27

5.53

6.48

$8.41

8.74

5:08

8.45

7.47

7.38

6.57

8.21

7.98

8.74

7.30

7,66

7.07

6.73

7.60

7.27

7.94

6.44

8.17

6.69

6.74

$7.19

32,7

,s

Q

Psi

1.22

1.39

1.28

1.21

1.39

1..41

1.42

1A3

1.47

1,49

1.50

1.57

1.66

2.08

$ .78

.75

.71

1.01

1.00'

.91'

1.06

.96

.99

.88

.93

.75

.93

.85

.96

1.01

1.26

L07

1.26

1.22

1.22

$1.11*

For capital and a e-

16.04

14.19

14.09

13.47

13.34

12.73.

10.65

9.88

939

9.54

830

8.03

7.98

7.44

6.88

3.51

- .84

$32.46

32.34

30.65

28.81

28.74

28.69

27.88

27.81

26.92

25.64

24.40

21.13

20.88

19.76

18.67

18.62

17.05

16.31

$17.49

w y

O G

'4''''

V

ÿ t1.0

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS eOM.IWOCV

Oc000M.

r1 r1 T'1 d1

4 e0

MOOO

404

N e0 ei

M

O

I

..

m m cd

M p t1`

0 ep

Nrl

^Ett rl t

.+

4

ó} c,ti.+cimm

EAw

0

4ci

Of, r-1

!` cu

V3-

N

1-1 e-i

ER-

O

0

ó ci

EPr

0

M n

0 0

C+.10

N

0 N

4 EA

09

4 m

M

.te

O

Op

.+ 00 CO M CO t-

N<Ot`OOOMW

N1CNMh

EP

0 ti

M LV .n

WOOO

44

E/3

0

0

.+

N

VJ r± r fR

0

4 ti

.te

a

N

0

Ti

1

GD

N

M0

OCV

4

Vi

N

W

N

ä err

Or

EH

OO

Lo

N c10 ri ry

6Ca

N

0 r1 ro

0

Wci

Se.

cri

4

13

01 a0 u c0

0

M.0 CIO 0t

0eP0.-iOWN cieticiciNCV ci,.i

eft.

01 eF x

0:

4

01 m eti

O

01

Vi

00

, fG e0 cu

35

°

2c,

ó6

é q

.a..

ó

4E.

.-, d

E°.:i ga d

W

A m da

.0

U

6

óá

q`0°UaaR7d

%

FmóÑd

xh3H t

Ñ

A

á q

3

^d

F.doZ3mF

x mg onx

;

ó ó

F

Ñ

G y

ó

U

° c.

CL c t

..:d

NQ

E ro

ÿU

4 a

G

.

V

R

C m

E

36

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146 g a

.y>

=I a

ÿ

ó

Ú g

F aR

X

..';

Z

Z

= g

.,

010`1p 0 w

I

a y .1

b

XX dINMMCV

X r0,

,, i

áox x

Hal o

1yl

't2 esa g

" to-

M

N

FH

N o t-

39.

t-

O

03.

AS c

F

H b

E

7 m o m v o a, w

E

É a

N

F

O

M u

F

O.i

y w

FI

4AXWXXX

OX

NbeMdlCVMMN

.1

M rl rN rl

000 e

X

A r1 d m

'y m n

.

.

d ers a

,Ì eia

: ri

YJ

4

Tt

..

-cl

ár

ß

0

úP.

Ó

R

F

F r!

E.

g

A

X0X0-ri00X

M xox0000

M

,-1,4.

y

Ó

14 eNbd,eMCVMMCI

CV

W

F

O a etl

D7 r1 ., N

W,./0

.1 d1 aiä b o

,y r

1.

t l'-' b

.,

O

!rì ao m

M

Va b i dt

FH eM d,

!1

o n d,

,,

Va lt m

N dJ

ó

GV o z

G

F

á aW,

Q pp

ñ

°°

EOg6eÚ

M

.

7G

F

Ora

ÿ.Fi

2y...

cd

OÓT+a wäx4,aoaac t

ÿ

F v

M ry

M

06

ácr:.

,+pÑ

Ó

FF e

G.`È+ÓI,

W

000

;M10+

Ág,Fg

Q w g

<,,.:

F0Á

MFF

O a á Pi

.,

00

F a

F F

.G

C

P.,-; x,

F w

,.,

Aa4.a

aN u u u a

C

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS

37 pictured in Figure 4.

The various cost items, expressed as percentage of the total, are presented graphically in Figures 4 and 5 in the section entitled General Comparisons.

THE CROP SEQUENCE FACTOR IN WHEAT COSTS

In compiling the data from which to formulate Table 21 showing the 1928 -30 average acre cost of pre- harvest operations in wheat production, some striking comparisons were brought to light. These demonstrate the importance of crop sequence in determining cost.

In Table 21 are listed the average time and expense of the various field operations, up to harvest, incurred when wheat follows alfalfa, sorghum, or lettuce.

Since wheat is a non cultivated crop, seedbed fitting, seeding, and irrigating are the main items of expense in growing the crop. Of these items, plowing (when necessary) and irrigation are the most time consuming.

To prepare a good seedbed, alfalfa ground must be plowed twice.

Sorghum land needs but one plowing, while following lettuce no plowing is necessary. Furthermore, lettuce land is so well levelled and in such a good state of tilth that either harrowing or floating generally is omitted.

Irrigating wheat is practiced irrespective of crop sequence, but, following lettuce, time spent in application and amount of water are materially lessened.

That is because good lettuce culture requires that the soil moisture content be kept at a high level.

Since that is done, and the crop itself does not greatly diminish the water supply, there remains a good storage of water in which to start the wheat crop. When wheat follows alfalfa or sorghum considerable amounts of water must be applied before the crop is seeded.

The tables showing average and estimated costs (Tables 21 and

22) appear to give the lettuce -wheat sequence a strong advantage. Analysis of the field data for 1929 and 1930, however, shows some disadvantages.

All the wheat -after -lettuce fields for both years were selected and compared with a like number of fields producing approximately the same net returns. Twenty wheat- after -lettuce fields during the two year period had pre- harvest costs which averaged

$2.39 less per acre, of which saving $1.33 was due to a lower expense for water. The fields of wheat not following lettuce produced an average of 118 pounds more grain. Much of that extra income was consumed by the extra costs for sacks and hauling.

The average net return for the two years therefore was only 98 cents less per acre for the wheat -after -lettuce group. That difference is not great when one considers the saving in expense and time required to produce the crop.

As was mentioned in the introductory paragraphs on wheat costs, removal of the "tail end" of the lettuce crop delays wheat seeding beyond the date when best yields are secured. By sacri-

38

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146

L.- L.- etOOC1000 rna IN, ci.nociw

rlr-<MMr-I

Eft

MbMOtiOt MOr-

< MO00bOOt00m co

N.y 'N M M

C1 f3 b

O

N uì

Cl.

M

W

O

0 ip

<0t9100009100

01-00w0 01.-mNM rtichchri

O

Ol

M

60

OO F

N

W 6

00bO0 tiW0 0 <0

Obr1 C9 O00C1Of

MtiO1

C1

Eft w ÿ

W w A

Ó

ZÌ neÑ

M

P.

O r-1 r..

ci ci

Eft c.ychai..

Ñ i ffì

000001--10000

001- rI W O O 0 4V 0

4 4r4 01MMWN ro

É

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS

39 ficing that part of the lettuce crop wheat can be seeded during the first week of January and better yields should follow. With such an adjustment in field practices, the lettuce -wheat sequence offers attractive possibilities for savings in production costs and increased net returns from wheat.

BARLEY

In the accompanying table barley is seen to have made the lowest net return to growers of any crop studied, yet it is widely grown and is of much importance to Salt River Valley farmers, where it takes the place of corn in most feeding rations.

Livestock feeders and dairymen use the crop extensively to furnish winter pasturage.

Several factors give rise to the fact that there is no well- defined or well -recognized correct time to seed small grains in the Valley.

Poor germination may result from too early fall seeding, but because of the open type of winter small grains may be started any time between November 1 and February 1, with of course varying results in final grain yields.

Crop sequence usually is the main factor which really determines when a small grain is sown.

Barley may follow a sorghum crop, or it may be disked into poor alfalfa stands to be used for winter pasture. This combination crop then may be plowed down in time for cotton planting.

Occasionally, when seeded in alfalfa, the barley is left for grain to be followed by a summer crop of sorghum. In some instances, barley is planted late in January after the removal of a fall lettuce crop.

Harvesting of barley occurs during late May and early

June.

The study of barley production costs was carried on only during the season of 1929 -30.

Nineteen fields, comprising 603 acres, were included, the data for which are presented in Table 23. The average yield of 2,103 pounds (almost 44 bushels) was fairly good.

Gross returns for all farms averaged $28.40 per acre and ranged from a low of $12.46 to a high of $49.28. With the usual allowance to the farmer and his family for labor in producing the crop, four fields showed a net loss, leaving nothing for interest or rental charges.

A difference of $24.01 appears between the average net returns of the four high and the four low return farms.

Differences in costs, even through harvest, show the high return group had a slightly larger average outlay than the low return group. When harvesting and marketing charges are disregarded, the high return group is shown to have saved only a little more than $2.00 per acre over the low return group. Strangely enough a part of the saving effected by the high yield group was in the costs of harvesting, which is done at a contract rate with a combine harvester, for

40 EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146 which they paid less per acre on the average than did the four low yield farms. The four "losing" farms ran up their costs somewhat by the use of more man labor, power and machinery, and water, but in most cases those differences were not great. The low yields of the latter group completely explain the losses incurred. The average yield of the low group was less than half that of the high group of four farms.

Furthermore, production costs per 100 pounds were more than twice as large for the losing fields.

Table 23, Part 1. BARLEY: Income. Expenses, and Net Returns per Acre for

Capital and Management. Salt River Valley, Arizona, 1930.

á

F

íFV c

U d

GROSS RETURNS a

'

aa

U

'yU

3

Av.

5

12

4

3

8

19

7

18

9

13

15

11

17

1

10

16

14

6

2

40

10

27

35

10

18

25

40

11

40

40

40

40

27

40

20

40

60

40

31.7

'

3650

3633

2814

2935

2585

2121

2142

1960

2173

1700

1720

1800

1450

1573

1836

1630

1800

1621

923

2103

Percent of total expense

$1.35

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.85

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.35

$1.35

ttl

O t-

$49.28

49.05

37.99

39.62

34.90

28.63

28.92

26.46

29.33

22.95

23.22

24.30

19.57

21.23

24.79

22.00

24.30

20.53

12.46

$28.40

x

7

O

, o

O

6 1/2

51/2

12

9 1/2

1114

81/2

81/4

71/4

6

81/4

6

101/2

814

6

711/2

6 1/2

10a/4

51/2

7

8

10.8

1.68

2.13

2.00

1.68

3.58

2.90

3.50

2.65

2.51

2.17

$1.77

2.51

1.82

3.12

2.44

1.76

2.25

1.95

3.22

$2.40

Man labor

EXPENSES

Pre-harvest

Equipment ro

G

F c

ÿ ...

Octl xS FE

$ .36

1.07

.09

4.69

.76

.13

.53

.63

.53

.53

4.40

1.25

.53

.53

3.93

5.05

1.56

.09

.53

$3.99

$2.48

4.09

2.95

3.90

2.96

3.15

1.92

5.88

2.34

1.80

2.34

3.08

3.82

4.51

3.38

17.4

Other c.

etl

$2.26

2.44

1.63

2.99

2.17

2.85

2.71

3.66

2.17

1.80

1.70

3.50

1.80

2.48

3.66

2.99

3.50

4.37

3.39

$2.74

11.9

It is striking to note the following fact. Had the four low yield farms produced their barley at no expense whatsoever and then sold their average yield at the going price, their "net" returns still would have been below the actual average net returns received by the four farmers producing the highest yields.

Unfortunately, sufficient data are not at hand to make it possible for the writer to explain the wide yield differences.

Since barley sometimes is grown for a feed crop, that may be a factor explaining some of the low yields.

Such crops grown for feed frequently receive less attention from growers than when grown as a cash crop.

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS

41

As was true with wheat, some poor barley yields may have resulted from too late seeding, especially where barley followed lettuce in the crop sequence. Among the four lettuce -barley fields,

(farms 12, 10, 14, and 6), only one, farm 12, secured a yield which was above the average for all the fields.

The other three were distinctly below the average. As was suggested for wheat, if the

"tail end" of the lettuce crop were sacrificed, the barley crop could be sown earlier and better yields should follow.

Table 23, Part 2.- BARLEY: Income, Expenses, and Net Returns per Acre for Capital and Management. Salt River Valley, Arizona, 1930.

EXPENSES

Harvest

Total

Other

T, m

$2.50

2.50

2.50

2.50

2.50

2.75

2.25

2.00

2.00

2.50

2.25

2.75

2.50

1.20

2.50

2.50

2.75

2.50

2.25

$2.38

10.3

b

$4.01

4.50

4.01

2.72

3.79

2.30

2.79

2.75

2.80

3.88

4.40

4.19

3.88

3.30

3.88

2.79

4.19

2.60

4.56

$3.54

15.4

F

$13.38

17.11

13.00

16.02

15.56

12.75

13.68

12.91

16.60

12.73

14.88

15.49

12.73

14.17

16.87

16.83

18.47

16.58

16.28

$15.06

65.8

$4.00

4.00

4.50

4.50

5.00

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.00

5.00

4.00

5.00

4.00

4.50

5.00

4.50

5.00

5.00

4.00

$4.55

19.9

q R

Ur

,

-ri

C

U

ú1

y

ñ

$3.86

3.60

2.87

3.05

2.73

9.31

2.31

2.20

2.39

1.83

1.87

1.98

1.53

1.71

1.98

1.60

1.98

1.55

1.07

$2.23

9.7

*Average total expense divided by average yield.

I

1

I am

A V tl

F a.

á i+

U

$1.83

1.82

1.41

1.47

1.29

1.06

1.07

.98

i

1.09

.85

i

.86

.90

.73

.79

.92

.82

.90

.76

.46

$1.05

4.6

$9.69

9.42

8.78

9.02

9.02

7.37

7.88

8.18

8.48

' i j

Ì

$23.07

26.53

21.78

25.04

24.60

20.12

21.56

21.09

25.08

7.68

'

20.41

6.73

7.88

6.26

7.00

7.90

6.92

7.88

7.31

5.53

21.61

23.37

18.99

21.17

24.77

23.75

26.35

2329

21.81

$7.84

$22.90

34.2

100.0

i

$ .63

1.20

1.26

1.30

1.30

1.34

1.35

1.46

.73

.77

.85

.95

.94

1.01

1.08

1.15

1.46

1.57

2.36

$1.09*

NET

RETURNS

For capital and management

In other instances, difference in soil fertility doubtless was an important factor. A preceding sorghum crop also reduces yields of small grains as compared with grain after alfalfa. The reduced yields are especially noticeable when grains are seeded too soon after harvesting the sorghums.

Seed and seedbed differences must have been minor yield factors, while irrigation practices may have had a marked influence.

Whatever may be the explanation of the differences, it is sufficient to state that the data, although for but one year, demonstrate the importance of good yields in determining farm profits to be made from the barley crop in the Salt River Valley.

$26.21

22.52

16.21

14.58

10.30

8.51

7.36

5.37

4.25

234

1.61

.93

.58

.06

.02

-1.75

-2.05

-3.36

-9.35

$5.50

42

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146

HEGARI SORGHUM GROWN FOR GRAIN

Grain sorghums occupy a position of considerable and increasing importance in the scheme of farming operations in the Salt

River Valley (see Table 27)

.

Soil and climatic conditions favor the production of high yields of grain and forage.

Land oc-

Table 24, Part 1.- REGARI GRAIN: Income, Expenses, and Net Returns per

Acre for Capital and Management. Salt River Valley, Arizona, 1930.

GROSS RETURNS

[ç w

G.

Ú

C

P

Y V

.Vi M D iiá

F

Ó

5

12

13

10

7

11

9

14

4

1

8

3

2

15

6

30

37

43

52

25

14

18

27

40

40

50

20

40

3

26

4900

4761

3688

3846

2353

1782

2200

2310

2012

1690

1277

1450

2304

1000

1100

$1.15

1.15

1.15

1.15

1.15

1.15

1,15

1.15

1.15

1.15

1.15

1.15

1.15

1.15

1.15

Averages

31

Percent of

2445 total expense

$1.15

$56.35

54.75

42.41

44.22

27 06

20.48

25.30

2637

23.14

19.44

14.69

16.67

26.50

11.50

12.65

$28.12

.

81/,

61/4

8%

12 l0

5

84

111/4

10%

111/4

91,¢

141/4

20%

9%

10%

Man Labor

O x i o

U

EXPENSES

Pre-harvest

Equipment b

Ti g ud

í".

CVtl

IxQ

V .O

Q

tVd

$2.49

1.89

2.61

3.58

3.03

1.52

2.58

3.39

3.24

8.38

2.81

4.27

6.26

2.94

3.19

$2.52

1.16

1.16

2.25

3.81

.53

2.86

8.30

2.33

2.93

3.45

4.94

9.12

.81

1.47

$1.47

.75

2.55

1.89

1.55

1.13

3.72

2.25

1014 $3.15

14.4

$3.83

17.5

Other d

N

$2.31

4.08

4.57

4.50

3.30

2.00

4.57

5.71

4.06

3,73

2.46

1.02

4.43

1.75

3.16

$3.44

15.7

cupied with the small grains is cleared of such crops by early

June giving ample time to prepare the seedbed for a sorghum crop to be planted before the middle of July. The sorghum matures early enough to be removed in time to seed alfalfa during late fall and early winter. Run -out stands of alfalfa are sometimes plowed early in the summer and sorghum is planted. The main varieties grown have been Double Dwarf milo and Dwarf

Hegari with the latter occupying the greater acreage.

In harvesting sorghums for grain the heads are removed by hand or by a simple heading machine attached to a wagon. Absence of rain during this season makes it possible to dry the heads sufficiently for threshing simply by spreading them on the ground in shallow stacks.

Combining, practiced with the extremely short types of sorghums, is impractical with Hegari.

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS

43

Fifteen fields averaging 31 acres each were included in the

Hegari cost study during 1930. The summarized data shown in

Table 24 indicate an average net return of $6.25 per acre for the fifteen farms. There is seen to be a difference of $41.49 an acre in net returns between the highest field and the lowest. No single factor in the pre- harvest costs nor all factors together can account

Table 24, Part 2.- REGARI GRAIN: Income, Expenses, and Net Returns per

Acre for Capital and Management. Salt River Valley, Arizona, 1930.

EXPENSES

Harvest Pre-harvest

Other rR

Vi

CC

4

$.10

.09

.09

.10

.10

.10

.10

.10

.10

.10

.10

.10

.10

'

.09

.09

$4.19

4.19

4.19

4.55

2.50

2.50

4.19

8.21

8.15

4.50

3.21

4.50

4.67

3.75

4.69

ad

G

F

$13.08

12.16

15.17

16.37

12.74

8.20

14.30

15.71

14.01

14.64

12.03

14.83

24.58

13.06

14.85

G cC AW q ttl

Ó

m g

$6.00

6.00

6.00

8.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

6.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

o

1%1

$3.91

3.88

3.12

3.11

1.92

1.49

1.81

1.88

1.64

1.43

1.08

1.28

1'.98

.85

.93

F

$ 9.91

9.88

9.12

11.11

8.92

6.49

6.81

6.88

7.64

6.43

6.08

6.28

8.98

5.85

5.93

m

ú

M

F

0.

$22.99

22.04

24.29

27.48

19.66

14.69

21.11

22.59

21.65

21.07

18.11

21.11

31.56

18.91

20.78

$.13

$3.87

17.7

$14.38

65.8

$5.47

25.0

$2.02

9.2

.5

*Average total expense divided by average yield.

$

7.49

34.2

$21.87

100.0

Total g

.

V

4

R

$ .47

.46

.66

.71

.83

.82

.96

.98

1.08

1.25

1.42

1.45

1.37

1.89

1.89

$ .89*

NET

RETURNS

For capital and management

$33.36

32.71

18.12

16.74

7.40

5.79

4.19

3.98

1.49

-1.63

-3.42

-4.44

-5.06

-7.41

-8.13

$

6.25

for more than a very small part of the difference between the two farms. In fact, among the six farms shown actually to have lost money only one, farm 14, could have made a profit by reducing the production costs to the group average.

Had that one farm been able to bring the crop to harvest for about $14.38

an acre, the group average, instead of $24.58, there would have been approximately $5.00 net profit instead of loss.

That farm had twice the average man labor charge and almost three times the outlay for horses and machinery. The possibility of profit was made more remote by a yield per acre less than average. Of the other five farms in the loss group all could have made some money had their yields been only up to 2,000 pounds.

Consider now the four farms showing the greatest acre profit.

All were about average or above in size of fields. All but one expended less than the average for man labor. Only one, however, had a power and machinery charge distinctly below the general

44

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146 average.

All but one used more than the average amount of water and all paid more than average taxes. Their costs for harvesting and sacks and twine of course were high. All in all, their production costs up to harvest were no lower than several others in the group. But their acre yields were from 50 to 100 per cent better than the group average. Their costs per hundredweight were only one -fourth as much as on the lowest yield farms.

The good farmer keeps production costs down but not at the expense of good yields. Some unsuccessful growers keep down costs and still lose money. The two farms losing most money per acre on Hegari spent only about $1.33 more up to harvest than did the two highest profit farms. Extreme differences in yields tell most of the story.

Seed costs for sorghums, making up only about one -half of 1 per cent of the total acre cost, are so low as to be almost negligible.

Prospective growers of sorghums should strive to plant only high quality seed of the best strains available. More thorough seedbed preparation also will reduce expense by cutting down the amount of man labor and power that must be used later in cultivating out weeds. Every effort, that does not increase production costs unduly, should be made to get high yields.

TAXES ON SORGHUM AND SMALL GRAIN LAND

Attention should be called to the charge for taxes on Hegari land in Table 24. The entire acre tax charge has been levied against the sorghum crop. The same thing was done with wheat and barley.

As a rule, when the small grains occupy the land from December through May, the sorghums follow them to be succeeded by alfalfa in the late fall. The taxes, in fairness to both crops, therefore, should be divided between them.

Had that been done an average of around $2.00 an acre greater net profit would have been shown for each of these crops.

Where such a system of double cropping is practiced the farmer, in estimating his costs, should charge his sorghum crop with only half the acre tax.

With the Hegari crop grown for grain some allowance should be made also for the value of the stalks remaining in the field after the heads are removed. Some preliminary cattle feeding trials* conducted by the Agricultural Experiment Station indicate that a considerable degree of success may be had if Hegari stalks are properly handled and pastured when still in a green condition.

With a grain yield such as the 1930 average there should be from 8 to 12 tons of green feed left in the field. When alfalfa is selling at $10 to $12 per ton, the indicated amount of stalks should be worth from $4 to $6 per acre, assuming that successive parts of the field are pastured when still in a green

*Forty -third Annual Report, Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station, p. 82.

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS

45 condition.

Hegari growers, therefore, who pasture the stalks should add some such estimated amount to get the total acre income from the crop.

HEGARI SORGHUM FOR SILAGE

As was mentioned in the previous section concerning Hegari grain this crop occupies an important place in the farming program of the Salt River Valley. While Hegari is grown mainly for a grain -feed or cash -crop still it is extensively produced for silage purposes.

Feeding trials with cattle at the Salt River

Valley Experiment Farm ** have shown no distinct differences between Hegari and corn silages.

Sorghums, however, have shown their ability to produce a greater tonnage of silage than corn grown under the existing conditions and Hegari now is much more commonly used. One rather major factor has tended to limit the use of silage in the dairy or beef cattle feeding program. That is the relative ease of growing and using pasture crops, coupled with the fact that judicious use of alfalfa, small grains (principally barley), and Sudan grass makes pasturage available throughout almost the entire season.

Careful management is needed, however, if continued success is to be had from pasturing dairy animals. Because of the lack of a well -planned pasturing scheme periods of scant supplies of succulent feed are likely to occur. This is especially true during late summer when alfalfa growth is retarded and again during the coldest weather in mid -winter when the small grains are making but little new growth. Some dairymen also believe the irregularity in both quantity and quality of pasturage causes ill effects on cows producing heavily. Hence, because of the uncertainties of the pasturing system many dairymen prefer to rely upon a constant supply of succulent roughage from silage.

Hegari, as stated earlier, generally is planted in the Salt River

Valley in late June and early July. Under normal growing and cultural conditions it is ready to ensile in late September and early October.

Planting and harvest dates depend to a considerable extent upon the preceding and succeeding crops in the farming system.

Table 25 contains the summarized record of expenses and returns in the production of Hegari silage on six farms.

Definite conclusions cannot be drawn from the results shown. The number of farms is small and the study covers only one year. Moreover, when the data were secured there was not enough silage sold to establish a definite market price. An arbitrary value, therefore, of one -third the average farm value of alfalfa (approximately $10.50; the delivered price of alfalfa, $12.41, less hauling charges, $1.92) was assigned for the price of the silage. The resultant average gross return of $47.25 was higher than for any of

*Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 108, p. 40, Cattle Feeding in Arizona.

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS 47 the grain crops (Figure 4).

Deducting the average total acre expense of $26.58 an average net return of $20.67 remains. That amount is decidedly larger than was realized from Hegari grown for grain or from barley and is slightly more than the three -year average net return from wheat.

After examining the table' the question immediately comes to mind -why isn't there a great shifting to production of Hegari for silage?

The answer is evident.

The use of silage has not become established upon. a scale definite enough to provide a ready sale of any great surplus to dairymen or cattle feeders.

The product must be used by the grower or find its market within convenient hauling distance. Where such conditions exist, and they may increase in frequency, the production of Hegari, or other adapted grain sorghum, appears to offer possibilities for profit.

This applies particularly to the producer of high yields.

Reference to Table 25 results in some striking comparisons.

Farms 2 and 5 with the highest net returns had an average production expense, excluding harvest, of only about $1.50 less than farms 1 and 6 with the lowest net returns. A difference in average net returns of some $21.79, therefore, is not to be found in the expense of growing the crop. It resulted almost entirely from the fact that the most successful growers produced almost twice as much tonnage.

The two low net producers, however, did spend about a dollar more as an average for man labor and a dollar more for power and machinery than did the two high producers. More judicious use of water both before and after planting may help to cut down man labor for irrigating, and better, more thorough seedbed preparation decreases the amounts of both man labor and power required later to cultivate to control weed growth.

Production costs may be reduced but the greatest chance for success lies in the direction of improved yields.

These may be secured by using high grade seed of better strains or varieties and by approved cultural practices.

GENERAL COMPARISONS BETWEEN CROPS STUDIED

In the preceding sections no particular attempt has been made to make comparisons between the crops included in the survey.

Most farmers, however, are interested in being able to study the relative possibilities for profit offered by all the more important crops which they can grow. The following discussion, therefore, brings together some of the relationships disclosed by the data for the individual crops studied.

If Salt River Valley agriculture is to be a profitable enterprise it must be conducted according to some systematic plan which will assure permanency to the possibilities offered.

Immediate profit should not be the only guide in determining what crops to grow.

48

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146

Too many of our farmers under irrigation systems in the cotton growing districts of Arizona are distinctly handicapped by their financial conditions.

In many cases the cotton crop, which was a real friend when prices were good, has turned out to be the false friend which has kept growers from improving their situations. The high prices of a few years ago sent many ordinarily conservative farmers "cotton crazy." The general results have often been most perplexing and distressing.

Cotton profits during the boom years .caused many growers to make that crop their sole project.

As long as prices remained good everything was all right with the farmer on the semi

virgin land. He was not bothered with growing any feed crops for his work animals or any garden truck for his family. Feed and food were purchased at the store and the cotton crop was depended upon to pay the bills. Then came the tobogganing of prices as shown by the data for the 1930 crop. That season ended with many farmers deeper in debt than they had been at the beginning. They found themselves involved with one or another of the various financing organizations.

The next season crops had to be planted and money was needed to get things growing. Cotton looked treacherous, but interested concerns wanted lint or seed or both and would take a crop pledge in return for money advanced to make the crop. Prices which the grower was to receive for his "contract" cotton could be set at the time the contract was drawn and the money advanced for growing the crop.

Frequently proceeds from the crops were not enough to fulfill all obligations and so the picture moved on. One bad year and one bad debt became several. A group of unorganized farmers in debt did not present a strong unit for any sort of bargaining about costs or prices.

When it was too late, farmers turned away from so much cotton to more feed crops, such as alfalfa, wheat, barley, and Hegari as Table 27 shows clearly. They produced more crops which could be fed or sold for cash or traded to a neighbor for services or other feed needed for livestock and work animals.

And, as

Table 26 shows, some of the substitute crops "netted" more than cotton in 1930.

Furthermore, considering the cash required to produce the crops, most of them left farmers in at least a better mental condition than had cotton.

The foregoing statements may read like a terrible indictment of cotton.

They are not meant to be.

The three -year average figures in the accompanying table do not show cotton to have been so bad in previous years and even in 1930 good farmers made more money from Pima cotton than from any other crop except alfalfa.

And Table 17 shows that alfalfa prices in 1930 had dropped relatively less than had cotton prices.

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS ti

M

.-i O w o rlwoo

4>ó4ó

,MMN

Ys

CV y1 0 0> O.O LriOClal(JCIO

N.N.

CV

ERo.00ri

ciro0iri t-

11N

ER.

000:00000

0diMCiNNN

EA

CO r1

49

E

M

Ó zï

M o rti m0>r1MO01ez rlNtieMVIrICV t-WroóíWoót`

1,-0.CJMCVCVi0

1}

M

M'+.y

£l}

O o 00041.00

MMy10Mrl.[D pió ci ci.0 " m

NG l mn.r

'Vt. O CV

M eX y;

C.

rl

Cge14

CV!eNM.00

Ny '

50

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146

The moral is merely that too much dependence on cotton, to the practical exclusion of other cash and feed crops, has jeopardized the credit of many individual farmers and in turn the credit of the Valley as a whole.

Table 27.- Acreages of Specified Crops in the Salt River Valley Area During the Period 1928 -33, Inclusive.*

All projects in Maricopa County

Year

Pima cotton

Upland cotton

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

50,000

62,000

43,000

30,000

20,000

21,000

88,000

83,000

72,000

70,000

45,000

47,000

Alfalfa hay

66,560

70,424

77,464

88,046

90,014

93,109

The Salt River Project only **

Wheat

Barley

18,857

8,471

7,687

12,828

18,797

25,770

5,642

5,946

4,649

6,385

9,256

9,418

Hegari

3,258

3,040

5,700

8,673

9,342

11,390

*County data furnished through courtesy of M. R. Wells, State Agricultural Statistician; those for the Salt River Project furnished by the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association.

* *Data for the entire county, including all irrigated lands in the Salt River Valley, were not available for all crops.

vation.

In 1932 the Salt River Project had about 242,000 acres under culti-

That amount represents approximately three fifths of the total irrigated acreage in

Maricopa County.

PIMA AND UPLAND COTTON

As was mentioned in the earlier discussion of cotton there has been a battle for supremacy between Pima and upland ever since the latter type of cotton came into prominence in the Salt River

Valley in 1923. Many people understand the reasons why cotton growers in the Valley plant a larger acreage of short staple varieties, but at the same time they believe the reasons are not well founded.

Reference to the data in Table 26 and Figure 4 leads the writer to the same belief.

Common objections to Pima are that it costs more to grow, more to pick, and more to get it ginned and when these things are done there is much less to sell. Then there is the longer growing season required, the difficulty of getting Pima well picked, and the objection to the quality of the final product commonly expressed by the mills, whether j ustified or not.

But the survey data show that with the 2 to 1 price ratio existing during the past few years Pima growers ordinarily can meet every objection and still finish the season ahead of upland growers.

Table 26 shows only a little difference in growing costs and

$13.76 higher harvesting and marketing costs for Pima, based on the three -year averages. But the data show also that every extra dollar charged to harvesting and marketing Pima meant more than an extra dollar in the net return column.

ALFALFA AND COTTON

Alfalfa is an older crop than cotton in the Salt River Valley and without doubt alfalfa is the basic crop upon which depends the permanency of agriculture in the Valley.

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS

51

18714

`6360

Nei Returns

/7i9cn//anesv3

//arrest

Seed

Taxes

Wale,

Egvi pnrsq j

Man Labw-

Lav6.$BFYE

COTTON

5MOWTSTAPCF !/LFVLM

COTTON

HAY

HEGi7R/

6A9/N

NEG/%Al

S/LNGE

Fig. 4.- Distribution of gross acre income between expense items, exclusive of interest, and net returns from the principal field crops grown in the Salt River Valley. Data for cotton, alfalfa hay, and wheat are

1.928 -30 averages, others are for 1930 only.

Seed costs for cotton and

Hegari are shown at the side of the respective columns.

52 EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146

Figure 4 shows the gross income from alfalfa was only about three -fourths as great as from upland cotton and a little more than half that from Pima cotton during the years 1928 -30.

But it shows also that net returns averaged higher from alfalfa than from upland cotton in all three years and that alfalfa led all crops in 1930.

"Sal L9NEOO5

SEED

HAAYESr

TAXE-S

WATER

Eou/PHEN r

HAN

LABaf

Lo4455rAPLE 5NA4TSriPLE

CoTroN Corral,

WHEAT BARLE

ALFALFA

NEGRA/

6A9/N

11E6/7M

SILAGE

Fig. 5.- Relationship between percentages of total expense represented by the various items for each crop included in the Salt River Valley survey.

Cotton, wheat, and alfalfa hay data are three -year averages, others are for 1930 only. The amount of the total acre expense is shown at the top of each column.

Figure 5 presents graphically for each crop the relative importance of the various items of production costs on a percentage basis.

It shows man labor and water to require a larger portion of the total costs for alfalfa than for any other crop. With cotton, however, a part of the cost represented as miscellaneous is for hoeing and thinning and for ditch up -keep, which are labor items. Even though labor and water appear relatively high for alfalfa, Figure 4 shows the actual money cost for labor in producing alfalfa is lower than for cotton and that water costs ran only about 25 cents an acre higher than for Pima cotton.

With relatively low acre costs for alfalfa and all the grain crops, taxes represent a greater percentage of the total than with cotton. Taxes are shown actually not to constitute a large portion of the costs for any crop in the Valley. But taxes must be paid in cash out of crop proceeds in big, lump sums. By the time they are due, frequently, the big, lump sum has dwindled

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS

53 away. That is one reason the tax collector has such a bad reputation.

The share of the total alfalfa costs attributed to harvesting is somewhat misleading. Only baling and hauling charges are included under that item, costs for mowing, raking, etc., being included under man labor and equipment. It should be re- stated also that costs of seedbed preparation, seed, and seeding are not included in the figures. Even though a charge of as much as $3 an acre per year be included, to cover the costs of starting the crop, net returns from alfalfa still compare favorably with those received from cotton.

The increasing practice of pasturing alfalfa, which reduces the removal of fertility from the farm, also augurs well for the future of the alfalfa enterprise.

WHEAT AND BARLEY

During the period of low cotton prices, wheat and barley have increased in importance in the Salt River Valley. Table 26 and

Figure 4 indicate that wheat was a much more profitable undertaking than barley. Reference to Tables 19 and 23 will show that during 1930 only two of the nineteen barley fields produced net returns which were higher than the average for all thirty -five of the wheat fields. Table 26 shows growing and harvesting costs about alike with a slight advantage there also for wheat.

With a price for barley only about two -thirds the price for wheat in 1930, however, a relationship existed which was not at all based on the relative value of the two grains. Since barley is so nearly equal to corn in feeding value it could well be fed to all kinds of livestock much more freely, especially when it is so undervalued in terms of wheat as it was in 1930. That year it should have been worth more for feed than as a cash crop. The return of the brewing industry may improve conditions for barley growers in the Valley.

With small grains grown as they are in the Salt River Valley the main labor load for the grower comes during the late fall and winter months.

Contract combine -harvesting brings about, on the part of the farmer, no serious labor competition between small grains and cotton or alfalfa. Therefore, even though net incomes from barley and wheat may be low, the fact that they provide a better distribution of labor and power expense and furnish an early summer cash or feed crop gives them a place of distinct merit in the cropping system of the Valley.

SORGHUM

While Hegari was the only sorghum included in the present study it is believed the data will apply reasonably well to any of the sorghums which may be shown to be suited to growing conditions in the Valley.

54

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146

In Table 26 it appears that production costs for Hegari grain were but slightly lower in 1930 than for wheat or barley, while

Hegari silage costs were considerably higher. With such a small number of silage producing farms studied, however, those data are considered not very significant.

Man labor and water costs are shown to be higher for sorghums than for the small grains.

Cultivation of a row -crop always increases costs.

The water cost is higher even though sorghums occupy the land less time than the small grain.

Some "free" water during the winter season coupled with effective winter rains and much less plant usage during cool weather cuts water costs for small grains.

The proportion charged to taxes for both the small grains and the sorghums appears higher in Figure 5 than it should because, as was stated previously, the taxes for the whole year were charged against each crop.

While the data for grain sorghums do not appear especially favorable, yet this crop has won a permanent place in Salt River

Valley farming. As was mentioned with barley it is believed the

1930 market price for Hegari was no true indication of the relative feed value of that grain. Feeding trials with poultry, beef cattle and dairy cattle have shown the grain sorghums to compare favorably with corn. The price of corn, shipped in from distant out -of -state points, is always relatively high in the Salt

River Valley and some maladjustment must have been responsible for holding down the price paid for such grains as barley and Hegari in 1930. An increasing practice of feeding in the

Valley should improve prices for both of these feed grains.

CONCLUSIONS

Based upon the foregoing data and their interpretations the following general statements seem warranted.

The efficient farmers in the Salt River Valley, so long as present conditions exist, will continue to place their major acreage in alfalfa and cotton with many of them growing wheat or barley to distribute the labor load and diversify income possibilities. But they will not stop there. They will reduce their cash outlay and increase their chances for success, by growing in a systematic scheme more feed crops such as barley and sorghums for grain or silage, and more food crops for their families. Such a balanced system should make Salt River Valley agriculture more profitable and permanent.

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS

55

GENERAL SUMMARY

Pima Cotton

With an average of 1,424 acres studied during the three years

1928 -30, Pima cotton produced an average of 346 pounds of lint.

The average cost per pound, exclusive of interest charges, was

17.2 cents, and the average price received by growers was 30.7

cents per pound.

Growing or pre- harvest costs, during the period, averaged almost $30 an acre, which amount accounted for about 40 per cent of the total costs.

Labor and equipment costs made up about 62.5 per cent of the growing costs and 26 per cent of the total costs.

Water and taxes constituted 13.1 per cent of all costs.

Harvesting and marketing required approximately 60 per cent of all costs, with picking alone costing almost as much as (38.1

per cent) all pre- harvest items.

Net returns to capital and management during the period dropped from $71.43 an acre in 1928 to $20.12 in 1930 and averaged

$45.11.

Pima cotton ranked highest in net returns of the four crops studied during all three years.

Growing costs, on the average, were not closely related to net returns when yields were above average. With low yields, growing costs tended to run higher and they bore a close relationship to net returns.

This latter 'condition indicates less efficient management.

Upland Cotton

During the three -year period data were secured from one hundred twenty -five fields of upland cotton totalling 7,322 acres. The average yield of lint was 475 pounds per acre.

The average cost per pound, exclusive of interest charges, was

9.3 cents, and the average price received

.

by growers was 15.7

cents.

Time of selling proved to be a very important factor in determining the prices received for the 1930 crop.

Growing costs, during the period, averaged $27.54 an acre, being

48.4 per cent of all costs.

Labor and equipment costs made up about 62.5 per cent of the growing costs and 31.4 per cent of the total costs.

Water and tax charges constituted 15.3 per cent of all costs with upland cotton.

Harvesting and marketing accounted for 51.6 per cent of the total costs, with picking alone requiring 31.3 per cent.

Net returns to capital and management during the period dropped from $45.41 an acre in 1928 to $10.64 in 1930 and averaged

$30.56 which amount was almost exactly two -thirds of the net return from Pima.

56 EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 146

Alfalfa

A total of 3,645 acres from sixty -one fields were included in the alfalfa hay survey over the three -year period. Yields for all surveyed fields averaged 4.04 tons per acre.

The average cost per ton, exclusive of interest charges and costs for starting the crop, was $7.30 and the average price received per ton was $14.33.

Alfalfa prices, on the average, showed no drop until 1930 which was not the case with cotton prices.

Hay production and marketing costs averaged $29.56 an acre during the period.

Costs of mowing and preparing the hay for baling constituted

28.2 per cent, with baling and hauling 40.5 per cent, of all costs.

Water and taxes accounted for 18.4 and 12.9 per cent, respectively, of the total costs of producing alfalfa hay from established stands.

Net returns to capital and management dropped from $41.25 an acre in 1929, the high year of the period, to $24.20 in 1930.

Returns from alfalfa in 1930 were higher than from any other crop included in the survey.

Average net returns from alfalfa hay and pasture sales were

$34.04 an acre for the three years.

That amount placed alfalfa second to Pima cotton.

Wheat

In the wheat survey one hundred twenty -six fields, comprising

8,881 acres, were included during the three years. The average yield from these fields was 1,927 pounds or 32.1 bushels per acre.

The average cost per 100 pounds, exclusive of interest, was

$1.12 and the average price received by growers was $2.17 per 100 pounds.

Like alfalfa, wheat prices did not drop until the last year of the survey.

Individual farm prices for wheat, unlike prices for alfalfa and

cotton, did not reflect any differences in the quality of the

product.

Pre -harvest growing costs during the period averaged about

$14 an acre, which was almost 65 per cent of the total costs.

Growing costs per acre for the small grains and sorghums averaged about half what they did for cotton.

Seed costs per acre were higher for wheat and barley than for any other crop studied and they made up a bigger share of all costs.

Water costs for wheat were less than for any other crop, averaging only $2.35 per acre for the three years.

Harvesting and marketing, largely done under contract, constituted 35.6 per cent of all costs in producing wheat.

SALT RIVER VALLEY FIELD CROPS

57

Net returns to capital and management from wheat throughout the period were more uniform than from cotton or alfalfa and averaged $20 an acre.

With no variations in prices received, acre yields were shown to be the most important factor influencing net returns from wheat.

Barley

Nineteen fields of barley, totalling about 600 acres, were surveyed in 1930. As would be expected, barley costs very closely paralleled the wheat costs.

The average yield of barley per acre was less than 200 pounds more than of wheat and costs per 100 pounds averaged $1.09, while wheat costs averaged $1.11 the same year.

The price received for barley was only $1.35 per 100 pounds while wheat brought $2.00.

Only two barley growers received net returns higher than the average of all wheat growers. Average net returns from barley were only $5.50 per acre.

When price relationships between wheat and barley are as much out of line as they were in 1930, barley growers should realize more from the crop by feeding it to livestock.

Hegari Sorghum

Hegari grain sorghum fields surveyed in 1930 showed costs running similar in total amount to wheat and barley with net returns averaging slightly better than from barley. The average yield of 2,445 pounds was better than from either of the small grains.

Growing costs showed practically the same relationship to harvesting and marketing costs as they did for the small grains.

Being a cultivated row -crop sorghums cost more for man labor than the small grains.

For Hegari, water costs averaged 70 cents an acre higher than for barley and $1.10 more than for wheat.

Seed costs for the sorghums are negligible.

As with barley, the low price per hundred -weight largely was responsible for the low net returns which averaged only $6.25

an acre from Hegari grain.

The study of Hegari silage costs was made on so-few farms that the data can be considered only as indications of the possibilities in growing the crop for silage, either for home feed or for sale to nearby feeders.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors wish to express appreciation to the other members of the Agronomy Department and to Dr. George W. Barr, economist in the Agricultural Extension Service, for helpful suggestions and criticisms, and especially to the farmers whose coöperation made this study possible.

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