ARIZONA AGRICULTURE 1955 ,

ARIZONA AGRICULTURE 1955 ,
Ak;,
ETfq
JANUARY, 1955
ARIZONA
AGRICULTURE
1955
ttA H .. .1**
1t1.79,*
-
,
A)
.
4*.ii4:;,,Y4'.44604,14*.****'
,
"1,02A,
.
4
e
'
+
'Ts
'
,..v,4'.
>
,
,
,
4.,1
,
,+
. ,
°
4,;.=
"
"7...`r,i
Felik";
*i..
`''
.,;'
,;
ORGANIZATION
BOARD OF REGENTS
Governor of Arizona
State Supt of Public Instruction
Term expires Jan., 1957
JOHN G. BABBITT, B.S.,
Term expires Jan., 1957
MICHAEL B. HODGES, Presiden'
Term expires Jan., 1959
JOHN M. JACOBS, Secretary
Term expires Jan., 1959
EVELYN JONES KIRMSE, A.M.
Term expires Jan., 1961
ALEXANDER G. JACOME, B.S., Treasurer
Term expires Jan., 1961
WILLIAM R. MATHEWS, A.B
Term expires Jan., 1963
LYNN M. LANEY, B.S., J.D.
Term expires Jan., 1963
SAMUEL H. MORRIS, A.B., J.D
Executive Adviser to the Board of Regents
ALFRED A. ATKINSON, D.Sc
ERNEST W. MCFARLAND (ex- officio) A.M., J.D., LL.D
CLIFTON L. HARKINS. (ex- officio) M.A.
RICHARD A. HARVILL, Ph. D
ROBERT L. NUGENT, Ph.D..
President of the University
Vice -President of the University
EXPERIMENT STATION ADMINISTRATION
PHIL S. ECKERT, Ph.D
RALPH S. HAWKINS, Ph.D
Picture on cover:
Director
Associate Director
Winter pasture in Salt River Valley, by Ray Manley.
ARIZONA AGRICULTURE 1955
PRODUCTION, INCOME, COSTS
By GEORGE W. BARRY
Crops and livestock produced within the state for sale in 1954
had a value of 380 million dollars. The volume of production represents an achievement on the part of the producers.
As the year 1954 opened the Arizona farmers had been faced
with a reduction of about a quarter of a million acres in their prin-
cipal crop, cotton. They acted quickly to meet the new situation.
The large income in 1954 resulted from higher yields on the
restricted cotton acreage, from the use of substitute crops and
from greater production of beef. Principal sources of agricultural
income were cotton, 184 million dollars; cattle and calves, 70
million; lettuce and other vegetable crops, 49 million. The most
significant change was an increase in the income from feed grains.
These, including hay and grains fed by the producer, had a value
of about 30 million dollars -twice the value of the crop of the
preceding year. Increases in cattle feeding also accounted for 10
million dollars additional income. (Table 1)
TABLE 1. - VALUE OF CROPS AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCED
IN ARIZONA FOR SALE
(In Millions of Dollars)
Average
Commodity
Cotton lint and cottonseed
Cattle and calves
Lettuce and other vegetable cropsa
Commercial feed grainsb
Dairy products
Alfalfa and other hayb
Citrus fruita
Sheep, lambs and wool
Eggs, chickens and turkeys
Seed crops
Miscellaneous crops
Miscellaneous livestock and livestock
products and Federal Government
payments
Tntal Va1uA
1954
$184
70
49
22
15
11
5
1953
$215c
60
45
10
15
12
5
5
5
4
5
5
2
6
6
4
$380
4
$385c
1944-1953
$ 98
48
44
8.2
11
10.4
4.5
4.6
4.8
3.8
8.3
3.4
$249
aYear ended August 31, 1954.
bIn addition to the quantities of the 1954 crop sold or to be sold, hay fed by
Arizona producers had an estimated value of 5 million dollars; grain
crops fed by the producer, 8 million dollars; and dairy, poultry, and other
products consumed by producer families, 3 million dollars.
cRevised.
'Head, Department of Agricultural Economics, and assisted by members
of the department: R. E. Seltzer, J. S. Hillman, J. S. St. Clair, A. Vanvig,
T. M. Stubblefield, R. R. Lewis and H. L. Runyan. The Federal Crop and
Livestock Reporting Service, Phoenix office headed by Evan Jones, contributed much basic data.
2
EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 261
More Power for Irrigation
Farmers used four per cent more energy for irrigation pumping
in the form of electricity and gas in 1954 than in 1953, but they
pumped about five per cent less water because of the greater lift.
The 1954 consumption for lifting water from ground water sources
was as follows: electricity, 1 1/3 billion kwh; natural gas at atmospheric pressure, six billion cu. feet.
The total water available for irrigation amounted to nearly
six million acre -feet of which two million were diverted from
streams and storage dams measured at the point of diversion and
about four million were pumped. This was about the same amount
of water as that used in 1953, but it was used on fewer acres partly
because of concentration of water on the smaller cotton acreages
and partly because of double cropping of grains. Of the gravity
water available for irrigation, the Colorado River contributed
about 900,000 acre -feet; the Salt River system 805,000; and the
Gila River above the Salt, 220,000.2
Major Crop Acreage Adjustments
Government dtop acreage adjustment programs and other
factors have brought about major shifts in Arizona acreages of
cotton, barley, grain sorghums, and wheat. Between 1953 and 1954
a reduction of 273,000 acres in cotton was associated with an increase of 260,000 acres of barley and grain sorghum but, since a
considerable portion of the land retired from cotton was double
cropped, probably around 50,000 acres cropped in 1953 were idle
in 1954. These changes are indicated below without any attempt
at precision, especially as to "other crops" and amount of double
cropping:
Cotton- American -Egyptian
Short Staple
Alfalfa
Barley
Grain sorghum
Wheat
Vegetables & Citrus
Other irrigated crops
and pasture
Less double cropping
Total acres irrigated
1952
1953
1954
acres
acres
acres
53,000
616,000
191,000
154,000
51,000
25,000
120,000
42,000
652,000
185,000
174,000
56,000
23,000
110,000
16,000
404,000
201,000
311,000
178,000
21,000
100,000
-50,000
140,000
120,000
-60,000
130,000
- 110,000
1,300,000
1,300,000
1,250,000
Estimates
for 1955
acres
18,000
334,000
200,000
200,000
40,000
100,000
2The basic water supply of the year 1954 furnished by the Gila and its
tributaries as reported by the Surface Water Division, U.S.G.S., was the
following: The Salt and Tonto Rivers above Roosevelt Lake and the Verde
River above Horseshoe Reservoir, 682,000 ac. ft.; flow into the San Carlos
Reservoir, 165,000 ac. ft.; the Santa Cruz River at Cortaro, 54,000 ac. ft;
and the Aqua Fria above Lake Pleasant, 26,000 ac. ft. Also, the Gila River
brought 80,000 ac. ft. into the state only part of which reached the San
Carlos Reservoir.
ARIZONA AGRICULTURE 1955
SALE PRICE OF CROPS AND SALE PRICE OF LAND
DOLLARS
¡
1
1
1
.I
11
1
600-
IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR
1-1
I
SALT RIVER VALLEY
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1.1
3
1.1
CROP PRICES FOR YEARS 1928 -54
500
- LAND PRICES FOR YEARS 1929 -55
400
300
200
100
11
I
I
11
I
11
I
0
1928'29 '30 '31 '32 '33 '34 '35 '36 '37 '38 '39 40 '41 42 43 44 45 '46 47 48 '49 '50 '51 '52 '53 '54
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
CROP PRICES
192910 31 '32 '33 '34 '35 '36 '37 '38 '39 '40'41 '42 '43 '44 '45 '46 '47 '46 '49 50 '51 62 '53 '54 '55
LAND PRICES
Figure 1 -Land prices tend to follow with a year or more delay the prices
received for crops grown on the land. The dashed line shows
the total return for 4 T alfalfa hay, 11/2 bales short staple cotton
and 1% T grain (3/4 T grain sorghum, % T barley) , while the
solid line shows the sale price of Salt River Valley farm land
without buildings or other major improvements.
New Lands and Crops
Seven or eight thousand acres of new land were irrigated in
Yuma County in 1954. Included were 2,160 acres on the Colorado
Indian Reservation and 2,000 acres in the Wellton- Mohawk Division of the Gila Project. In the Yuma -Mesa area, citrus plantings
increased to 3,300 acres at the beginning of 1955. Included are
1,706 acres of lemons of which 1,131 were planted in 1954. Lands
being prepared for planting to lemons in 1955 comprise 480 acres.
Nineteen hundred fifty -four was Cochise County's biggest
agricultural year. Much new land that did not get water until late
1953 produced crops for the first time in 1954. Crops included grain
sorghum, 50,000 acres, and cotton, nearly 17,000 acres. (Table 8)
Land Values
Agricultural land in the gravity irrigated projects of the state
has been in great demand from 1951 through 1954. This demand
can be measured by the sale prices compared with the price of the
products grown on the land. In the Salt River Project, for example,
from 1929 through 1946 the price of land tended to change in
about the same proportion as the price of commodities grown on
it, although the change in land price was usually delayed one or
two years. Over a quarter of a century the sale price of farm land
without buildings has equaled in value the sale price of 11/2 bales
upland cotton, four tons alfalfa hay, three -quarters ton barley and
three -quarters ton grain sorghum. (Fig. 1)
4
EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 261
Following World War II farm commodity prices rose but land
prices did not respond in like proportions until 1950. This may have
been due in part to the rather popular belief that a depression
would follow the War and in part to the great areas in Arizona
that were being developed by pumping and which provided an outlet for investment capital in agricultural land.
From 1951 through 1954 land in gravity irrigation projects
sold relatively higher than the crops produced thereon. These
higher prices may be attributed to the fact that the expansion in
new pumping areas was drawing to a close, causing new capital
to seek out land in older projects, and possibly to the greater per
acre yields of cotton and other crops.
The Seasonal Pattern of Prices
Arizona's best grade of alfalfa hay tends to be lowest in price
in July and highest in January. In the ten -year period ended with
1953, July prices were 79 per cent of the year's average price,
while January price was 117 per cent of the year's average price.
Of course the summer prices were for hay baled in the field while
the winter price was for hay sold out of storage. In the case of.
barley, May was the low month (93 per cent of the annual aver-
age) and January was the high month (106 per cent). Lowest
prices were received for grain sorghum in October (96 per cent of
the year's average) and the highest price in June (103 per cent).
By months these changes are shown below with the high and the
low in bold -face type.
Relative prices of hay and grain in Arizona by months of the year'
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Alfalfa hay- -117
113
113
103
91
Barley
106 104 105 101
93
Grain
Sorghum 100 99 101 102 102
85
95
79
96
81
95
88
98
104
100
110
103
116
104
103
102
102
99
96
97
97
'Arizona #1 alfalfa hay prices from Weekly Market Review, Federal State
Market News Service, Los Angeles. Grain prices from the Federal Crop
and Livestock Reporting Service, Phoenix. Twelve-month moving aver-
age centered was calculated; then the percentage which each month's
price bore to the moving average; finally, the ten -year, 1944 -1953, averages of monthly deviations were determined and figures rounded.
Costs of Production
Although the adjusted, farming program of 1954 resulted in
almost as much gross income as that of the year previous, the net
income was definitely reduced. Total water cost was about three
per cent greater. More money was spent on fertilizer. Land was
more carefully tilled and, consequently, at higher cost per acre. On
the other hand, custom machine costs as of January, 1955 were
no higher than those of a year earlier. In fact, some of the costs
were lower, particularly the mechanical harvesting of cotton.
(Table 7)
ARIZONA AGRICULTURE 1955
5
Keeping Ahead of Insects
Arizona growers have been rather successful in recent years
in controlling insects on cotton. In fact, the higher yields of cotton
in recent years are attributed partly to this control. A check indicates that about 90 per cent of the cotton farmers in Maricopa,
Pinal and Pima counties and about 60 per cent of the farmers in
Graham County used insecticides in 1954. Also, use of insecticides
on citrus and vegetables has been necessary for a decade or more.
Now, it has become necessary to extend the use of insecticides
to other crops, including barley, grain sorghum and alfalfa.
A most challenging problem is that of controlling the yellow clover aphid, which attacked alfalfa with great damage in
1954. Another insect, the Khapra beetle, has apparently been
confined to certain feed storage houses so far, but could spread
to farm storage. An extension in the use of paper bags might
reduce this hazard. A sizeable amount of mixed feed for livestock
and poultry is being put up in non -returnable bags that cost around
12c for a 100 -pound container. This costs a little more than the
price of a new gunny sack at 20c less a return credit of 10c, yet,
if the small extra cost will help prevent the spread of the insects,
use of the paper bag should be considered.
Cotton
For six successive years Arizona has produced more cotton
per acre than any other state. The 1954 yield per acre of upland
cotton was slightly more than two bales of 480 -pound net lint each
compared with the 1953 yield of 766 pounds and with a U.S. 1954
average of 339 pounds. The total crop amounted to about 850,000
bales of which 20,000 were of the American- Egyptian variety.
The large yields of recent years are attributed in part to favor-
able seasons, in part to better control of insects, and in part to
improved variety and cultural practices and greater use of fertilizers. Yields may have been larger in 1954 because of a somewhat increased use of water per acre and a tendency to select the
most productive fields under the acreage reduction program. In
1954, almost all of the cotton farmers in Maricopa, Pinal and Pima
counties used fertilizer, the typical amount being 75 pounds nitro-
gen and half that much P20,. On the other hand, one -third of
Graham County cotton farmers used fertilizer.
After a period of years when machine picking had become
more and more important, a smaller percentage of cotton was
picked by machines in 1954 -about 46 per cent through December,
compared with 52 per cent through December, 1953. This was
partly due to availability of labor and partly due to a study indicating rather large field losses under certain machine picking conditions.3
3Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 259 Costs of Harvesting Upland Cotton in Arizona, Sept., 1954.
6
EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 261
The cost of growing upland cotton will average around $200
per acre in 1955 for a yield of 1.7 bales per acre which is the 19501954 average yield. (Table 2) Most items of cost will likely be similar to those of the year preceding with the exception of the water
cost which is increasing because of a somewhat greater water use
and higher pumping lifts. On the other hand, custom machine rates
for picking cotton have been on the decrease.
Support prices will continue in 1955 at 90 per cent of parity
for upland cotton. A price of 32c or more per pound for middling
1 -1/32 inch is expected. American -Egyptian price will be supported, however, at only 75 per cent of parity, that is at about 53c
per pound for No. 3 grade, 1-7/16 inch staple.
Some changes in the cotton acreages assigned to most growers have been made for 1955: first, because of the further reduction in cotton acreage allotted under the control program and, second, because of the decision in all Arizona counties except Graham
to allot acreages to growers on the basis of the grower's three year average cotton acreage rather than on the basis of his crop
land acreage. Strip cropping was practiced only to a small extent
in 1954, but might increase in 1955. The plan is to alternate four
rows of cotton with an equal space of fallow land. In such case,
only half the acreage is counted against the allotment.
American -Egyptian Cotton
.
Arizona's 1954 crop of 20,000 bales of American -Egyptian
cotton was produced by more than 1,000 growers, practically all of
whom grew this along with a large acreage of short staple cotton.
The year's crop yield of nearly 600 pounds per acre was rather
spectacular in comparison with the 1953 yield of 375 pounds and
in comparison with the ten -year, 1943 -1952, average yield of 322
pounds. Most of the yield increase was attributed to the variety
developed at the University of Arizona, Pima S -1, which for the
first time in 1954 made up a major portion of the crop. The 1954
American- Egyptian cotton yield per acre was 61 per cent of upland
cotton. If this relationship continues or improves it will indicate
that the new Pima S -1 variety has regained for American -Egyptian cotton much of the yield advantage lost to upland cotton since
the early thirties: from 1917 -1931 the yield relationship averaged
67 per cent; from 1932 -1953 only 52 per cent.
In 1955 a major percentage of the American- Egyptian crop
may be picked by hand. A recent study appears to indicate that
the loss of cotton in the field and the quality loss in many cases
more than offsets the lower cost of machine picking. An analysis
of cotton classing of machine picked and hand picked bales in
four gins during the 1954 harvest season and involving the cotton
of eighty growers, show a grade loss of 1 -1/3 grades for machine
picking and a staple loss of one hundredth of an inch. This alone
resulted in a price differential in 1954 of 71/2c per pound or $36
a bale. Field losses were shown to be greater with machine pick-
TABLE 2. - COST OF PRODUCING COTTON PER ACRE,
CENTRAL ARIZONA, 1955a
Salt
River
Project
A. UPLAND COTT 3N
Direct Costs
Water, 4 acre feet
Other preharvest costs
Land preparation
Seed
Planting
Cultivating
Hoeing
Irrigation and ditch labor
Fertilizer and application
Insecticide and application
Production credit
Industrial insurance
Social Security
$ 16
Pump Areas
200' lift 300' lift
$ 21b
$ 32b
$10.00
2.00
1.50
6.00
13.00c
8.50
18.00
12.00d
2.50
2.00e
1.50e
77
Harvest Costs(
77
77
Per bale
Hand picking, $3 per cwt. $43.50
Contracting, .25 per cwt.
3.60
Hauling
L75
Ginning, bags & ties ($13.8,0)
and insurance and storag e,
for 20 days, ($1.20)
15.00
$63.85
Less seed credits
800 lbs. @ $60 per Ton 24.00
Net per bale
$39.85
For yield of 1.7 bales per a cre
68
68
68
Total Direct Costs
$161
$166
$177
Other Costs
Interest on land investment
30
20
5
Real estate taxes
5
3
2
Non -cash pumping costs
11
16
Total Cost of Producing Upla nd Cotton
$196
$200
$200
=Costs for machine operation based on custom rates where operation is
commonly hired, and on farm costs for operation where farmer normally
uses his own equipment.
bElectricity figured at 1c per kwh or 2c per ac. ft. per foot of lift. See
Arizona Agriculture 1954, pp. 3 and 4.
cVaries depending on weed condition.
dFor 80 lbs. dust containing DDT Toxaphene and Sulphur at 10c per lb. for
dust (or equivalent in spray) and 4Y2c per lb. for application.
elndustrial insurance 2.73 per cent of payroll; employer contribution to
Social Security, 2 per cent of payroll.
(Figures for hand labor. See text.
B. PIMA S -1
Salt
River
Project
Pump Areas
200' lift 300' lift
Direct Costs
Water & preharvest costs same as above
$ 93
$ 98
$109
Net harvest & ginning costs for yield
of one balee
89
89
89
Total Direct Costs
$182
$187
$198
Other Costs same as above
35
34
23
Total Cost of Producing Pima S -1 Cotton
$217
$221
$221
gHand picking @ $5 per cwt and contracting @ .50 per cwt = $90.75 per
bale; hauling, $2 per bale; ginning services, $25.83 per bale; less seed
credits, 1,050 lbs. @ $56 per ton, $29.40 per bale = $89.18 net per bale.
8
EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN
261
ing although only two examples of measured results were available
to indicate the amount and economic loss associated with it.
The study previously mentioned also reports that the same
crews picked in one hour 70 per cent as much American -Egyptian
cotton as upland cotton. Although this would point to a picking
rate only 1.43 times that of short staple, experience in the past
year has indicated that it may require a rate of up to twice that
of short staple to induce pickers to shift from short staple to long.
Picking cost is the most important difference between the cost of
producing American- Egyptian and upland cotton. For a yield of
one bale, picked by hand, the cost in 1955 is estimated at $220 per
acre. (Table 2) .
Livestock
Increased marketings boosted the Arizona stockmen's 1954
net sales of beef cattle to 70 million dollars, 10 million above those
of 1953. The year 1954 marked the end of an increase in cattle
numbers that began in 1949. As the cattle industry entered the
downward phase of the production cycle, marketing of Arizona
cattle increased. During 1954 more than 650,000 head of Arizona
cattle and calves were marketed, as compared' to about 580,000
head the year previous. The larger marketings were associated
with heavier local slaughter, Arizona slaughter of cattle and calves
increasing from 121,000 head in 1953 to 215,000 in 1954. As breeding herds were being reduced, cows were a larger- than -normal part
of marketings.
Inshipments of cattle to Arizona in the year ended June 30,
1954, amounted to 198,000 head compared to 248,000 head in the
preceding year. In January, 1955, feeder cattle again began flowing into Arizona from Mexico.
Confronted by a drastically lower price level throughout 1953
and 1954, the cattle industry has taken vigorous steps to increase
the demand for beef through an advertising and beef promotion
program. The relatively stable prices for beef cattle during 1954,
about $22 per cwt. for good steers on the Los Angeles market,
enabled feeders to operate in a normal way.
Cattle feeding in Arizona continued to increase during the
year. On January 1, 1955, there were about 300 feedlots operating
in the state, and 169,000 head of cattle were reported as being
fed. This compares with about 100,000 head on the same date in
1954 and 80,000 in 1953. Of the feedlots, 85 are located in the
Yuma area and most of the remainder in Salt River Valley, but
several other valleys shared in the feeding operations.
Wool
The incentive price for 1955 of 62c per pound wool, grease
basis, may encourage some increase in Arizona production. By
comparison, the 1954 prices received by wool growers averaged
about 54c and the 1953 prices 47c. Government reports have indicated a 15 per cent increase in Arizona sheep numbers from 1951
to 1954. The number of sheep reported shorn in 1954 is 408,000.
ARIZONA AGRICULTURE 1955
CAR
9
VEGETABLE SHIPMENTS FROM ARIZONA,YEAR ENDING AUGUST,I954,
BY KIND AND BY MONTHS
9794
I
1__
® LETTUCE
600
o
500
400
CARROTS
CABBAGE, CAULIFLOWER AND POTATOES
CANTALOUPES, HONEYDEWS AND WATERMELONS
j
1
1
300
f
1
4i
E
AV
100
1
G
200
/
I
f
1
1
1
r
1 OCT.
NOV..
DEC.
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
I
MAY
1
JUNE I
JULY I
AUG.
Figure 2- Arizona produces important quantities of vegetables nine
months of the year.
Vegetables
A 49 million dollar income came from vegetables in the year
ended August 31, 1954. This was eight per cent larger than in the
preceding year because of more vegetables being marketed from
fewer acres. The State has become of year -round importance in
the production of vegetables, important shipments being made
every month in the year except September. (Fig. 2) Forty -eight
thousand carlots of vegetables were produced on 85,000 acres in
the year ended August 31, 1954. Lettuce alone accounted for 20,400
carlots from 35,000 acres; carrots 2,500 carlots from 4,000 acres.
Other production during the year included 2,500 carlots of early
potatoes, about 1,000 carlots of onions, 880 carlots of cabbage,
435 carlots of celery, 350 carlots of cauliflower and 147 carlots
of broccoli.
Melons of several kinds make up most of the summer shipments. Cantaloupes produced 11,700 carlots from 21,000 acres;
watermelons 3,600 carlots from about 6,000 acres; and honeydews 1,500 carlots from 3,400 acres. Yuma County produced three -
fourths of the cantaloupes, and in addition to melons, Yuma
County produced one -third of the State's crop of lettuce and nearly
one -fourth of the carrots.
Since World War II, shipments of lettuce from the Salt River
and Yuma districts have been shifting to an earlier date in the fall,
and to a later date in the spring. Such shifts have moved the peak
of the lettuce deals in the two areas forward by two weeks, to
the third week of November in the Salt River Valley and to early
December at Yuma. They have been at the expense of the Central
10
EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN
261
California district which has been pushed out almost completely
from late November and early December shipments.
Substitution of Great Lakes types, which withstand warmer
temperatures, for the Imperial types has been the principal reason
for the shifts. A related development is the new method of packaging and shipment. Research is now underway in the Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Arizona, to assess
the effect of these shifts in the lettuce industry.
The Dairy Industry
Two- thirds of the milk output of the state at the end of 1954
was being produced by 18,000 cows.4 These cows, chiefly in Mari -
copa County, produced on the average about 9,000 pounds annually containing 340 pounds of marketable fat.
The cost of producing milk for fluid consumption in 1955 is
estimated at $480 per cow or $1.48 per pound of fat. (Table 3)
Arizona has become a high -cost milk producing area because of
the increasing values of land on which dairy farms are located, the
high price of grain compared with that in many other parts of
the United States and the increasing price -at times scarcity -of
good quality alfalfa hay and other suitable roughage. These higher
roughage costs are due not only to the high price of land, but also
to the higher cost of irrigation water.
In order to find out how a neighboring area has been attempting to solve the high cost problem, a study was made in November,
1954,5 which shows some very specific differences in cost and in
management practices between the production of milk for fluid
consumption in Maricopa County and in Los Angeles County.
Some comparisons follow, the first figure applying to Maricopa
County, the second, in italics, to Los Angeles County: total cost
per cow $487, $600; cost of feed $257, $335; cost of labor $75,
$96. Some differences in practices follow, with the Maricopa Coun-
ty practice given first: typical number of cows per herd 50 to 75,
150 to 200; concentrates fed per cow six pounds per day, 12 pounds per
day; wage rates for hired milkers $300 per month plus $75 in services, totaling $375, compared with $440 per month; concentrate mixture weighted heavily to barley, weighted heavily to copra meal; replace cows by raising calves, 80 per cent cows purchased after freshening;
Many walk -in type barns, practically all stanchion type barns; 75 per
cent Holstein, 95 per cent Holstein; number of years average cow is
kept in milking herd 4 to 5, 2 to 3.
4In December, 1954, the ten principal processors of the state, which supply
most of the consumers in the metropolitan areas of the state, purchased
from farmers nearly 700,000 pounds of butter fat. Assuming that this is
'/s of the total state production, then the state's production would be
800,000 pounds of fat per month, or nearly 10,000,000 pounds of fat per
year- roughly 80,000 gallons of 3.8 per cent milk per day.
5By staff of Department of Agricultural Economics which at that time
included Alfred Austin, Salt River Valley dairyman.
11
ARIZONA AGRICULTURE 1955
TABLE 3. - COST OF PRODUCING MILK IN
CENTRAL ARIZONA, 1955
Per Pound Per Cow
Per Year
Fat
(dollars)
(cents)
Feed
Alfalfa haya (30 lbs. daily at $30 per ton)
Concentrateb (7 lbs. daily throughout year)
Labor
Milking, feeding, and care of cows and cost
of services furnished
Replacement of cowsd
Depreciation of barns, corrals and equipments
Interest at 6% on value of cows, on investment
in land and buildings and corrals and equipment, and on cost of 3 months' hay supplyf
Miscellaneous costs9
Management"
49
27
165
92
22
9
11
75
30
35
9
11
8
146
30
35
25
487
Note: This budget is based on a herd of 60 cows, weighing 1,350 lbs. each,
with an average of 50 cows milking, and with annual sales of 340
lbs. fat. The D.H.I.A. 1954 average production in Arizona was 357
lbs. fat, but sales including human consumption on the dairy farm
averaged 5% less than production as measured by D.H.I.A. Costs
per cow, therefore, were divided by 340 lbs, to get the figures obtained in the column entitled "Per Pound Fat."
aAlfalfa hay or other roughage (silage, green -crop, pasture) figured at
the price of the feed value of an equivalent amount of hay, e.g., 80 lbs.
green chop could be substituted for 20 lbs. hay.
bFigured at $72 per ton delivered.
cWages at $300 per month plus $75 per month for house, water, electricity
and milk furnished.
dThe budget assumes use of cows an average of 5 years, replacement of
cows with heifers to freshen within 6 weeks, plus 6 weeks cost of feed
and labor, a 21/2% death loss, a purchase price of $260, and a sale price
of old cows at 11c per lb. for 1,300 lbs.
BBarns at 5%, pickup truck at 20 %, corrals, small tractor, all equipment
including combine, milker and tank at 10 %.
fInterest on land at $600 per acre, 5 acres to 60 cows; also interest on one half original cost of equipment.
oMiscellaneous costs per cow: taxes, $4; artificial insemination, $7.50;
supplies and repairs, $12; fire insurance, $3; Dairy Herd Improvement
Association fees, $3; veterinary fees, $8; electricity, $7; industrial insurance at $2.73 per $100 payroll, $1.65; Social Security, 2% paid by employer,
$1.20; telephone, 65c; less $3 credit for manure, and less $10 credit for
each heifer calf.
"Management -10% of costs other than cost of feed purchased. Total
labor and management cost on a 60 -cow dairy would be $6,000.
The differing practices in the two counties, together with
climatic differences, result in an annual production per cow of
340 pounds of fat sold in Maricopa County and 423 pounds in Los
Angeles County; also, in a cost per pound fat of $1.48 in Maricopa
County and $1.42 in Los Angeles County.
Intermingled with the cost of producing milk in Arizona is
the cost of producing young stock, or specifically the cost of cow re-
placement. Raising heifers is a costly procedure on high -priced
land. Farm records are not sufficiently detailed to show whether
EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 261
12
TABLE 4. - COST OF PRODUCING ALFALFA HAY PER ACRE,
CENTRAL ARIZONA, 1955a
direct Costs
Establishing stand
Land preparation
30c)
Seed (20 lbs.
Drilling
Irrigating, twice
Fertilizer & application
(50 lbs. P2O, -,)
200' lift
300' lift
$ 10
$ 10
$ 10
22
9
27
9
40
9
6
9
6
9
6
9
8
20
8
20
$ 84
$ 89
30
5
20
3
13
$125
$10.00
6.00
1.00
2.00
6.00
5.00_
Water, 1 acre -foot
One -third charged each year
Growing Costs
Water, 5 acre -feet
Irrigation labor
Fertilizer & application
(50 lbs. P,O5)
Insecticide & applicationb
Harvesting Costs
Mowing & raking
Baling, 5 tons
Total Direct Costs
Jther Costs
Interest on land investment
Real estate taxes
Pump Areas
Salt
River
Project
8
20
$102
5
2
20
Non -cash pumping costs
$129
$119
Total Cost of Producing Alfalfa
aThese calculations represent anticipated costs during 1955 on owner -operated farms, assuming a yield of 5 tons per acre. No item was included for
farm automobile expense, farm -overhead, or for management, and no
return credited for pasture.
bFor 15 lbs. 5% Malathion at 13c lb. plus $1 per acre application cost. Three
applications.
the dairyman is making a profit from growing his replacement
stock or whether he might have a greater net income if he were
to produce milk and let someone else produce replacement stock.
It appears, however, that under conditions where the heifer is
raised in a corral, the feed cost alone from birth to freshening at
two years and three months of age, amounts at present prices to
nearly $200.
Records studied indicate that some dairymen are producing
milk at low cost, but are running supplemental crop production
programs at a loss. The converse of this occurs: some dairymen
make largest profits from cotton rather than from milk.
Alfalfa Hay
The 200,000 acres of alfalfa harvested for hay in 1954 equals
the average acreage of the past dozen years. Efforts of growers
to increase acreage for 1955 harvest have been offset by the inroads of the yellow clover aphid. Since control methods involve
considerable extra cost some growers are looking for substitutes.
13
ARIZONA AGRICULTURE 1955
TABLE 5. - COST OF PRODUCING BARLEY PER ACRE,
CENTRAL ARIZONA, 1955
salt
River
Project
Direct Costs
Water, 214 acre feet
Other preharvest costs
Land preparation
Seed (100 lbs. ® $4)
$
$
9
rump areas
200' lift
$ 12
300' lift
$ 18
7.00
4.00
1.00
5.00
14.00
3.00
Drilling
Irrigation & ditch labor
Fertilizer & application
34
34
34
Insecticide & applicationa
Harvesting: Combining, $6;
10
10
10
hauling, $4
62
56
53
Total Direct Costs
Other Costs
2.50
10
15
Interest on land investmentb
1.00
1.50
2.50
Real estate taxesb
9.00
6.00
2.50
Non -cash pumping costs
$ 74.50
$ 73.50
$ 73
Total Cost of Producing Barley
¡When needed, for 20 lbs. 3% BHC at 9c plus $1 per acre for application.
bone -half charged to barley and one -half to sorghums under double cropping plan.
For feed production purposes hybrid corn and soybeans are being
substituted on small acreages but in a larger way, barley and
grain sorghums have been replacing alfalfa. For improving soil
structure Papago peas are being substituted to some extent.
The costs of growing alfalfa will be a little higher in 1955,
around $125 per acre, because of the extra costs of insect control
and because of extra water that is being applied per acre. (Table 4)
Offsetting this, however, should be larger yields of hay.
Grain
Barley
Farmers chose barley and grain sorghum in 1954 to take
the place of cotton on land made available by the control program. Barley acreage increased to 311,000 acres in 1954 compared with 174,000 acres in the preceding year. In order to provide
storage space for the crop of barley and also for the grain sorghum crop, farmers in the six months ending June 30, 1954, ar-
ranged for Government loans to build storage for 100,000 tons of
grain. A total of 150,000 tons of barley was placed in the loan
program, including 58,000 in Maricopa County, 55,000 in Pinal,
nd nearly 11,000 tons in Yuma.
The 1954 returns were disappointing to farmers partly be-
cause gross income from a good crop of barley at present prices
is only about one -fourth that from a good crop of cotton. Then,
too, the year's yield per acre was lower than expected-averaging
only 11/4 tons per acre. For the foregoing reasons a large reduction in acreage for the 1955 barley harvest is likely.
EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 261
14
TABLE 6. - COST OF PRODUCING GRAIN SORGHUMS
PER ACRE, CENTRAL ARIZONA, 1955
Pump Areas
Salt
River
Project 200' lift 300' lift
Direct Costs
Water, 3 acre feet
$ 14
$ 16
$ 24
Other preharvest costs
Land preparation
7.00
Seed
1.00
Planting
1.00
Cultivating
2.50
Irrigation & ditch labor
6.50
Fertilizer & application
15.00
Insecticide & applicationa
4.00
37
37
37
Harvesting
Combining
7.00
Hauling
4.00
11
11
11
Total Direct Costs
$ 62
$ 64
$ 72
Other Costs
Interest on land investmentb
15
10
2.50
Real estate taxes b
2.50
1.50
1.00
Non -cash pumping costs
8
12
Total Cost of Producing
Grain Sorghums
$ 79.50
$ 83.50
$ 87.50
aFor DDT and Toxaphene, 20 lbs. at 15c plus $1 per acre for application.
bOne -half charged to barley and one -half to sorghums under double crop-
ping plan.
Cost of producing barley in 1954 will average close to $75 per
acre. (Table 5) The costs associated with producing the crop
(direct costs) amount to about $60 an acre at the 300 -foot lift.
This part of the total cost would be covered by a 11/2 ton yield at
the probable Government support price of $40 per ton.
Higher average yields of barley are likely in 1955 because the
new growers who entered the line of production in 1954 will have
had one year of experience. Then, too, the 1955 barley crop will
not be placed on land hastily prepared following a late harvested
cotton crop.
Grain Sorghum
The 170,000 ton grain sorghum crop, three times that of 1953,
was produced from a harvested acreage of 135,000 acres. Adding sorghums now harvested for grain, including that for silage,
makes a reported total of 178,000 acres. Growers will be encouraged to continue large acreages of grain sorghum in 1955 because
of the high yields on many farms and because of the continued
support price which is estimated to be $44 or $45 per ton in 1955.
With a 11/2-ton yield direct costs would be covered up to a 200foot lift. A 2 -ton yield would cover all costs to a 300 -foot lift.
(Table 6)
Wheat
Arizona normally has produced only 2,000 to 2,500 acres of
wheat, so little that the State was left out of the National Wheat
ARIZONA AGRICULTURE 1955
15
Allotment Program for 1955. With no restrictions on acreage in
Arizona and with a desire to diversify production, Central and
Southern Arizona growers have planned a rather large increase
in wheat acreage in 1955- possibly as much as three or four
times the acreage of 1954. If the larger acreage materializes, Arizona may be classed as a wheat state for the crop year of 1956
which could bring about a control program for wheat in Arizona.
The 1955 support price on wheat in Arizona, about $53 per ton,
is only three -fourths as high as it would have been if Arizona acreage had been restricted. The price on the open market will be
influenced, however, by support prices effective in other states.
Copies of map entitled "Irrigated Areas in Arizona" originally released with Arizona Agriculture 1954 are still available and may be
obtained by writing the Department of Agricultural Economics,
University of Arizona, Tucson.
EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 261
16
TABLE 7. -CUSTOM OPERATION RATES, CENTRAL ARIZONA
EFFECTIVE TO JANUARY, 1955a
Operation
Land preparation, tillage and crop care
Stalk cutting (lower rate on cotton,
higher on sorghum)
Disk plowing, 12 in.
Moldboard plowing (2 -way plow)
Renovating, 8 -10 in.
Subsoiling, 18 -20 in. depth with shanks
Most common rate
(dollars)
1.25-1.50
4.50
6.00
2.50-3.50
3' apart
Land planing (twice: first time $3,
second time $2)
Disking
Dragging
Bordering, border disk
Planting, row crops
Drilling grains
Broadcast seeding
Cultivating
Ground dusting, cotton
Ground spraying, grains
Ground spraying, carrots (oil spray)
Ground spraying, onions
Fumigation (ground injection to
control nematodes)
Operations by airplaneb
Seeding alfalfa or small grain
Dusting cotton, 20# applications
Dusting vegetablesd
Insecticide spraying, 5 gal. applications
Defoliating cotton, 10 gal. application
Citrus dusting
Harvesting
Combining barley, wheat(
Combining sorghum
Mowing hay
Raking hay
Baling hays
Cutting sorghum for silage
Machine picking cotton (upland) h
Machine picking cotton (Pima S -1)
Haulingi
Unit
Acre
5.00-5.50
5.00
1.50-1.75
1.50-1.75
.75
1.50-1.75
1.75-2.00
.75-1.00
1.25-1.50
.75-1.00
1.50
2.00
3.00
3.00
1.20
.90-1.00
1.00
1.70
2.65
2.00
6.00
7.00
1.50
1.50
3.75-4.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
1.75
Ton
cwt
Ton
aBased on interviews with custom operators.
bWhere custom operator furnishes flagmen. If farmer furnishes flagmen,
rates are about 10c per acre lower. $25 minimum charge for airplane
operations.
c41 /2e lb. but 90c per acre minimum 300 acres or over, $1 per acre minimum
under 300 acres.
d5c per lb. with $1.00 per acre minimum, 7%c per lb. for organic phosphates.
eRates vary from 4 gal. @ $1.50 per acre to 15 gals. @ $3.15 per acre.
(Under 2,000 lb. yield, $5.00; over 4,000 lb. yield, $7.50 per acre.
9$3.75 per ton when bales are dropped on ground as baled, $4.00 when
dropped in bunches behind baler.
hFor 1st and 2nd picking. Where 1st pickin alone is done and operator
does not return - rate of 11/2c would apply. $10 -$12 per acre for scrapping.
For 1st and 2nd picking, including trailers. For 1st picking alone 22/4 c;
for scrapping, 4c; except after hand picking twice a rate of 6c or $12
per acre applies.
} For first 5 miles. 5c per ton for each additional mile.
State
Coco-
Totals a
Graham
Apache Cochise nino
1,250,000 13,000 85,000
5,000 35,000
201,000 4,200 4,500 1,100
6,000
583,000
.
2,100
146,000
26,900 160,000
2,100
37,100
2,700 35,000
12,400
3,950
800
16,900
1,400
82,000
1,500
404,000
830,000
1,900
300
400
600
18,000
900
200 32,000
1,700
1,400
150
6,950
1,000
1,000
3,500
300 128,000
500
50
3,900
11,300
16,000
20,000
800
3,500
3,300
1,600
30
350
1,260
50
1,7001
40
400
200
400
300
400
2,000
600
48,000
6,200
3,600
100
200
16,000
100
3,000
4,400
600
400
4,300
30
5,000
8,000
600
450
50
81,000
800
1,200
300
2,000
600
500
3,800
900
200 50,000
268,000 1,200 10,000
330,000
700
36,000 11,300
16,000
175,000
170,000
21,000
18,000
8,000
2,400
85,000
48,000
6,300
85,000
8,500
40,000
2,300
500
GreenSanta
lee
Pinal
Cruz
Maricopa Navajo Pima
Yavapai Yuma
6,000 530,000 13,000 48,000 290,000 5,000
17,000 170,000
600
1,000 82,000
3,400 1,400 22,000
4,100 70,000
TABLE 8.- PRINCIPAL ARIZONA CROPS IN 1954- ACREAGE BY COUNTIES AND PRODUCTION FOR THE STATE
Acres Irrigatedbc
Alfalfa: acres harvestedd
Tons cut for hays
Cotton:
Upland
acres harvested
bales
American -Egyptian
acres harvested
bales
Feed grains:
Barley
acres harvested
tons of grain
Corn -acres harvested
tons of grain
Grain sorghum for
all purposes, acres
tons of grain
Wheat -acres harvested
tons of grain
Dry edible beans:
acres harvested
tons harvested
Vegetables -acres be
Carlots shippedbe
Grapefruit - acresb
tons soldbe
Oranges -acresb
tons soldbe
Lemons -acresb
Ta n veri n Pc-a erpcb
Source: Federal Crop & Livestock Reporting Service, Phoenix, except as otherwise noted.
astate totals include estimates for Mohave and Gila counties.
bEstimates of the Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Arizona.
cFigures represent both irrigated crops and irrigated pasture. Acreage double cropped is counted but once. In addition, it is estimated
that dry -land crops were harvested from approximately 100,000 acres. Hence the figures on this line do not represent crop acreage totals."
dAcreage alfalfa does not include land that was pastured only, and alfalfa tons do not include hay crops pastured off.
eYear ended August 31, 1954.
fOf these, 1,200 acres planted in 1953 and 1954.
0
0
X
lAl
3
M
fir
1
I
ilmmmir
44ME
=====M=Mrr,gfk-AMM w
i
=======r11 WM=
=OM
w
11====MIPTRME
i ME=
===giiiMEMMEMMMI
mr!
a
o
o
o
Cd
t.
MOIRW7EMEMMEMEMEMEM
=REIM=
MMEMEMMEMEMME MEMMMti
WEMEMMEEMEM2==
I
w
z
o
MEM=MMEMMEMMMit =NM
w
MIIr5041.
w
WI=
-
=O.
ai
o
.1r
ed
Co
vi
Cu
ro
au
o
FE:4:ft-7
Cu
Cu
ui
0
Cd
=MIME IMMIUM
AMMIMEME°MMRroMM o
o
FO
o
BIEM
=Mt WAIIMEMMI
SIM
'IMMIMIMEM
MEMMMIIMME
o
cx
1tE
FO
111 Aar
NI'j
fat
Mr=
NIMPILIMMIg
w
Fre"--
occ
ai
Cu
cx
r0./"'
11111.
ElliEMI111rl o
111151101riniOr%1E
-irminprijA
iø_ wingouril
--11:1611111111111..,.
.
1101.1FIV
11111111
W ADA=
EMI
MMEM
o
N
7'"
-7Tm77.010P4"-WIL---1.i7-wimm
Co
1.J
co
=NM=
i
MMEMMZMi& o°
LANE ill
-11
or
ILL
UJ
w
EMPINT7AM
P===
q
OEM
--. , 1 ,r,
cx
CCcx
.
IiirS 111111
I' MEW . Am,
11=1 AMMIOMMummis
pl
maiminar ammic.,
mot Aukc.:di work- --,
MEMMEMM
cx
o
o
o
cc
w
CL
muri
eu
Ui
Co
rrafr5
!MA
MMIIIM
VdOOlJVVJ
, 71141
ElliiMOMPREIEBMIMINF 1111111111FAL A. MIIIIMENIMMINTIIIMULA
I MMINAPOPUSI EINIMMil .1111 /211.11111111111111
moms=
ILMEMMISIS
Jj
FO
co
Wz
CoN-z'
W 017°3
1.
111
'''11.me.
44
<1.z=
000,
r
'
'
1.1.146'
.z
ww<
v,Z
Call1111
'1111MMIN,
MIIPWLEMNI MEE
zz
11111Valll w
INEEMMIN
Man
MEOW=
Fi'1177-M[
MIIMINII
EL._ MEN=
o
CD
Warm
unpalgrA rammunrer. Fniasmirall
n.
!Is 'NE
II 9M 66,
BAEMyAMEMMU
211RMEMAM umwmgaumaimummommummomm -AmAllai
AI =MO IMIMARMINIEWIATIMU Immrmiumalarmi
MIEN
WI
low mil =ME IMMEMImmm,
mm,r, gmR4m mum mom1101NISIVIIM INFIE11161
Elbh.: -; .AMMIESAMMEMBEMMENIMMOMMUME=MMEr II MEW_
mmcw-441011 rrmsmammimummimmaulimumm, mummim
MEW ' '74AilliN r
MOMEMEMEMS= MMMEN91110F MEMMOMM or
MEW
ADM It EMPICAMMINIMEMAMENEM MMI/MMEMEMEMENLii
MMIL
KW V IMME"ThEMME
M=
EilMMNMEMME
mmooLlEMO
MN
IMMUM1 ¡
II= v/IEFIM IMINFMME
im
V MUM
BM MIMMEMMANIF
MEMMEIMEM
MEE 4:mom =MUM=
V'
MPF
d
=WANE=
=UMW=
ip
r
IMMit IMOMMEMJM711
MINUAEMM§ MEmmEMMI
V 411g
111..
2 i almommmommr
MMEAMMIIME = -NANNEIPsw
1 I MY altrili, =MENEM
MEMEIMil41 11111
MI v
Co
(.11
Cr/
w
.
y
'
'
.
711
11=MIMMON Er mamma urommommim
'
OV
w
0.1
ui
010.4t VO
IIIMMEMISrA
NV
D
FO
EIMINEMIL Rela1=110111ffir,
co
AMLAMMIBMIU), MP ENSIbillaiMMANIN7MAI
imusimagramm
IF !I
AIM=
MEMMEMMASELIMO
NM
=MN WW1 ill"- =ME
WHAMINIMEtwism 1;AMR
111!"-- EC
,
,
.
.
9,
o
71
z
o
-.azo
0
oo
),-LI.
c'n
<
o
=
I IC
o
o
ir F-13 g
2
<
°
(3
'
ma;
o
mosAmb
,,z(tuow
f:
o.
River
l
4.12:7 Iia col't
rill
ILI
ERE
LommeaRifortium
--._, mammarimos
.
-allirametroll
rig
Minit_..;i4
I Alf
maillwrir
MEMPAII JINN
cc
wpm
3
Ox
4
CD
0
tgiu"°q1/1
o .o
Q.
o
I
CD
I
-
<
=WI
MiligiCsia
1!..1
1'2%
28
ao
OuvS6!gm
tu2,
w
5a
o
z
41;)
o
o'f) w
-J
3
cta
cco
a _uvo
a
M
-J
I4C5
-z
<1
cc
O.
tE
D2<
op
d
li7111110
DEM...dMUNIMI NOMMIMMUnmum
cx
I-
(I)
Co
II
=MUM It
=M
MEW A
MMIMM
'-'4M
hukkka
muaplim
MIMI a
mmomm
,....sm mum
....o
EMMA =MI
MMIUMUMMME
,maglimimplimmuomm
MALI-m...MUNTAMMO O
pp=idr....-m....mmer
MEMEMMI2du
m
EMM107111dabill===mmagm
3
w
WAMOMEM===
TAMIXUE MU=
HEM=
MEE=
MOMIMMIVMEMEM
I
ME EMEMMEMMEMMEMM
gillimir
zo
u_ o
0
vim mom
AF mom
,inw OM=
AFWMEM
cx
FE-2
0
cE
fMP.,Ai,0§W===
LMOMEMBEEMMEME
BINROMMEMEEM
MTMUOMMIMMEEME
MLAWAMMIMMEMMM
o
N
z
z
o
2
14CW)
0
E 0-
z
fic
0g
low
-mommoil
DI
o
w
-1
C-9-
z
o
o
o
cc
Ifir
'mmUMN
aNNWA
ani
ELAM
MENEM
mAlimanim, -mmor
or,51 Lrik..A
AMIffolum EEO
4mamismermmeD
Ammi lommilw'mem
mussignmsummilL7m
Co
EVILMAN
=WM
nanny ()_
are
MAIO
INIEWO1M
1111=EUE
ICVMFMENIEMMEMMEM
M
LAi
WIMMilawLer
NIL
1111111ffirwi..-11
IF EVA MMEImMib."
MIMINTL
MENEM
.MBRIUMME
daill
- M=MMIROM
=mom
MMEMEMMuM
1.1
0 0- cc
o
zX<
u_ouiL
r 111171.111
,j11111PE011L' .1 EOM
4141111`
11.1.6°
EM
Gm
Em
MANI
CD
o_
;_ 77711-11
EIMINEM
L Wilk 111114, !MUM
MIPS i,
MINIVOCCVBINNINIMMIMINEENV M, 1111 11111111"
I=
imili MOM 110111MMIMMIMIEBILIIMIPANNANAMINIMIele KAL161111§§ i 1111101==
16....R.
1.11 r-IlltIlliMNI
=1111=IIMPAINEVIMMOINMEMMMILJMUI
MINIM. JAI Jil!'!".5!EfluN MAE
110701111
AIMINIII
o
4.Ei.II
ir
o
Zw
3wOCoj
-
'
MU suammomminjoimmommonimmosimm-Annew
o
Limousin
E
.--
.
ummommures=virrilan-r. Iiinendirarr- 11111M1111=111
11IIMILINIMMIIM ,AMMIMMOMMIMMIRWAVIMM11 7 .1611011 -WAINGEN
0111AMEFALOPEEnoe 11211.111MILAW
o v%1ATAN
c
mm
..
rJaii NM
MINERVE111
lAmmomMOMMEMMENEMIU -mmomultor
-Alsram mirlimill mommiumm
AiNnoo -1VNId
BMW
o
11.1
mom
104whilirmallommumwmar
CO
mwn
mom
F%
ME=
AIIMMEE
ME= ANUM=M1
cE
11=11 AMMO
um'
EMMIM
C mormsa re' ritNPAN
Ed MEMMLIUM Mer-1"1111411rmum.W.
AMMMEr
o
'
MEIYAMAM NM=
gMOMMR, MI=
,7temn:e`'
mom >-
EDIWCINCLIIIIINIMMIN611Welliang11.1d.
III6
ui
NEI
NNE !Mi. /ICJ
.6iii
INNE
,)mi
am
ml onion
omilw
,,,i.
......m
,..,;emillumm.
m
IRR 0..,.--....16....0
rimiir5u".---111111111111/MI
moms
=MN
rfillUME
ILI
numisam
no
ow qN.1-11116"rw''m
saiMilIMM
INMIIIMM * P2 l uj
Ilm.51 d
uliummOMM
sommonimm
-
1116.1111:Pli LEI
MIII
_dawn=
z
o
All
"
iiialial
MI ITINNEML
iTJ
MINN MIME
LURIIUI ,1111111EN
=om
mommll
IMPiNdif
al
IIII
=MI MITI
ire11111111
MEW
RJR
ILAMS
LU
T1.
01
II
MINN
uiuI.aì
Miltr
tc
r-
111111111111111111
o
147)/
112
tx
0
o
ej
Ilm11151111
1--
Z
"NMI
(Ji Z
r="7-INCELM:
lUll
cu
IWARIRENI
44-
MIONIMININIMIMMIL74AMMIN
smumummsimmumuipNW,
IN ziz
ummmomtv
111%-7.4=-0110-'
-mm
n
NEIL
mamma,
summon
zf 4-
f:
Ilairrausammentnim
bi
mum
mum
Krimommminmomsm
ammo
mom
1111111111111111111111
411111111111WKAM
Ammumumm miem
3
-0:"
mmmA mmonimpl.rumwminamsosmaillim
'a
'um
mmosommtniramm"
ma
AilmD'
willimms
at
RlRlLIF1
.11,11.111
ell.
1111
INinilIllmIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJIIIII 1111.
Astimill11111111111111111
ii11111201111MENIMIIIIIIIIIIMOM
,
--
mmummommmummomma ammo
01110111usa
AMUMR163.4iMm. MMIMMIIMMEIMMIINMEMINAMN
mENIMII/MMINN MIER
MIEN
vamMINu--
41111111111111111M
o
8'8
RV
!-1
61431WHIMmomm
0
;
CC
zI
04
munimmomp,
mrAmsMirikN
o
a,
11111111MMENNUM,;-m-
ISEWr
r-
RURRY
Zt
'UMW 1111111111111M1111
mew
tu
ms sm
mmonsur
mamrei
lo
NNEMINIIIMENINIEIMMIN ENE
RUNEN
o
o
o
IMMIMIMM
CC'S
WAf'
0
tu
ANINIONOIN
IMENININI1111111111111 111111111MIMIIIIIII1
IIMMIIM111111111111111111111011
1
-NNINNIMEIRMIN
z
pilaw
NMENNII
EMME
0,4
Lt
NIMIMEENIM
tu
-
.:.
O
1111291 MEESE
w
18
22
O
o
ingempumwmg
,4,
grdwiRMIMMIELEFEMMIM1111111%.
ENNENEM AMR
ININNIMINE
al
do
1111:4N,R1
010
-
IlmmommummgmmummmmelAvo
o
f4K-Awn°
Imillm
o
Re= RIFINUIMMIWAN
;-
rommauiti. zaismman
bi
r_
a
NNIONIIIIIIIIMMtillir ANIMINall
4111i
AMEN= MI WWI' ,AINIMINUINNINIIIMI 44111111 NMI=
111111rm
IIMINNINISIIIIIIIMOMMIMIINOMMOIMI/M117
MIM
11111111
_,"Allt
MI
MINE PNINEMEMIMMINIMAMOMMINNIMINENE E
ENRIEIrm -1- modimmm1111
IIIIIII MNIME 511111 MSIMINENEMMINNIIIMININNNEN MI 111111MN _140111111111111E
IEMMIFERMIE4 WHIN
IMMIRMAN 'I SIMINNIMIIINI IIMMEMII
ir' EEIMMIIIIIN
i ININCIAMMO SERUM m_____WINalliMil
rAMME,1111_111MW mmrsul
ALANIIIIMMIIM
.
CC
_
Mk`
lo
r
lalind
UM EMIII
III
riem
o
z
IL
i.
x
z
zw
ZRFi
O2
312°
00.4
tr)
q"
cr,
cr,
<W"
1.1J'az
2
-.3
NM MU MIMS
1111-16%
1111E1
LISBUS
- ta ta
OQJ
Ogn
wolo
CC
coo
CC 2 w
,z
4,0
Z
-
o 0 <0
-J GO
'
tu
z
04)U.Z6
Z CC
-1_
r/
rit
J1,
3
UJS
.
.
o
[t.
Jo
3 tr.
.242
o
--
f-
z
Z
>
cc
x
1
>
o
o
z
%
2
1-
%
outo9
'k .::f
C:t.j)
um -41
.o.
ce.
X
ftINI100 Vd0018VIN
Pr MEN
u9
Ì44
..,
c3
0,
',2
$ . .......... z
.
z
,
lo
VION11101111111111111
IMOMMUMMILMIIIIMMION
MIMI
am
KNERtimoniummo
Qi
ie
i
.¡
WIT
11111
RIVRR
11111111
t
IMPLIGNI
oiropcsnr
CC
-I
-.Aglk 11=11 idillig
gmamossms,,
1 \ 11= .110-
1
-4. 11111111111111117i
..
try
1911111Eg MIRIMENIMM11111
I
1
a_
o
''à.L
o
iSIONINNilir
.1
o:elD
MINN
mum
IU Imnsi
In '-'ilmm
=mom mom.
mmammuwmmirm
,monms *MIN VIIII
MIMI NAM
INUNIAMI
111MMENENNIMAN06004111.11.11MM
.
IMEMUMMIMENWWNIM
311ENIENNWe
ElaINUMMEdier
NIEMERM9MTITi
IMMISMI V"'
Ng
RURUR
IR
RUIRURR
EIMMILIN
RURRURRURRUU
mommssmmummmoWsms
MIIWINNINENEENENNE.
MIMMIMMIMMEIMMIEMI
IMMOMMIMENEIMMIMM
MOMMIMENIMMINION
mmmramommmemmommum
Ill
mommnimmommommommim
INI
u111-161,111;161111
,A
-<
--
b. I ow
o aD wo
Ct. -CC O. CC
1111111MMIENN
o
CrOoCC<0Z0
cc<
4-.
iih 1-
TM
O.
n8
-Se
3V
_J
INEININMEIS
ta
w IDIIII
: »'-'
1-
.
4
0
00
am
la
IQ
- 1N
:.::::::.:.:
' tit
1
7. 00
.f7z
tu
"
ztu
td
1-
UJ
1-
et-
lo
z
0
o
w
0 0
to
N111111111111111e111
z
3
o
RUtRUR
LAN
INIMIHIMMINNIMEMNIUM11
ta
co-/
MINIM
=MIME
NN
1111Ass
mum
EMI
=LW 11111 111IN
o
111111111111
IM
dismal Lamm
o
E 0.
- "" ItifibmicaudiNG' Airgr
4msmommvshil..mumn
,4 -smamr-129mmmosu
irt1=11111
R.
r 0 ., .f, a "
o a.
ISOM
MIMI: 41
_AN
4
E 0.
2i
o
o
IIMMINNO
IMIKINEN
311111ENN" -
MEN
ti-
ZT)
EV
110.1111141
mdismsour
it Mg AWE
MEWL lit
Elm
INN
4111101111111"
PIK
' 'a,
dH
et
0g.
1,4
Frimmp
.L
.,
1
E II Mk. Mpg=
edm4
2,ad1IMME141011
X
NM IPA
U'
L..1 IMO 6.1
,p,
tx
CC
tat
C)
4-:
o
4100
CC <Di-
-J m
w
11111'
124
426
0Z2
Lo
ME
WIRMEMEMMAN
mmonsammus sw Ems IMA
MINIIMMOM
UM
1$
S9143E1
MS41
Q uI,7
14.1 0 3
lo
o
C4
01-40
w4N
O (1) 12.1
NENRWINEN
E
lu
f-
44)4410
tj
111111111111
muipm
o
611.12
Z CC Z
P" 11111111111111
tai
oc ) ut
0 Li/ 0
lo
mmmimorgr
WINFAIMINE
AlLUMENNENIIIN AMEN
,Ni4i1ENNNELI
mmirsmermsmmmsomm
Nqs
mini
,ff;
NWNUN =MN =ME=
-mamma
mum IMMUNE ANNFAIENMILMENIM
MINE
1911MMUMMISIIIMME
o
o
o
o
w
-
181 'ON ILICE5
DN
Is
0
o.
MINIIIIIMOIM=MMIMPAI 1111
IV
ISIMMZEll
1111111111M1
11/
11
mm imrimmmumpormumossmilmmil mum
Fit
lRIIIRRRU
"O
(6
-1
O
g
E ui
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