LAND USE PLANS FOR MECQSTA AND GSSEOLA COUNTIES BASED C’N SQIL AND ECQMGMEC CQNSED §RATEGN$ Thai: fee {4% Dame #9 M S. MICHEGAN STATE UNNEREHTY Clycies A. Mack €961 LIBRARY Michigan State University ABSTRACT LAND USE PLANS FOR MECOSTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTIES BASED ON SOIL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS by Clyde A. Black There is a need for land use planning based on economic considera- tions. That is, planning which will maximize the net income for each farm. The purpose of this study was to meet this need for economic land use planning in a two county area of Michigan. The two counties chosen were Necosta and Osceola counties. An analysis was made of the current land use by soil management units in the two county area. This analysis was made from data that were taken for the National Inventory of Soil and Water Conservation leads. This analysis demonstrated that the proportion of land in crops, forest, permanent pasture, and left idle was related to three characteristics of the soil: 1) texture of the primary material; 2) natural drainage; and 3) slope. The expected gross income for four crops, corn, wheat, oats, and alfalfa, was calculated for each soil management unit under common and improved meg-eat. The expected cost of production was also calcu- lated for each soil management unit under the two levels of management and subtracted from the expected gross income to calculate the expected . net income. The expected gross income correlated very well with the expected net income. In every case the improved level of management produced a higher expected net income than the common level of manage-E ment. As in the analysis of the present land use, the same three soil Clyde A. Black characteristics had an effect on the expected net income. Three crops, corn, wheat, and alfalfa, were combined in various sequences to determine what sequences would be the most profitable under the two levels of management. The level of management had an effect of making more sequences acceptable in certain instances. In some cases certain sequences were acceptable under one level of management while unacceptable under an- other. In most cases the longer land use sequences were more accept- able than the shorter sequences. The sequences using less corn and more alfalfa were more acceptable than the sequences that had more corn and less alfalfa. This result is partially overcome by the im- proved level of management. The three soil characteristics had an effect on the acceptability of the sequences also. Assuming that each of the acceptable sequences would be used on each of the soil management units, an analysis was made of the percent- ages of each unit that would be devoted to each of the three crops. Thesedata were combined for the total cropland of the two county , area to show the changes that would result if an economic plan of land use were adopted. It was shown that less corn would be grown, and more wheat would be grown under common management. under improved manage- ment more corn and wheat would be grown. LAND USE PLANS FOR MECOSTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTIES BASED ON SOIL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS BY Clyde A. Black A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Soil Science 1961 :5 ‘50- hi 3 \J r\ AKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his appreciation to his major professor and advisor, Dr. Eugene P. Whiteside. Dr. Whiteside has given many suggestions for carrying out this research and has been very helpful in his review and criticism of this thesis. The writer is also indebted to Mt. William Heneberry, of the U. S. D. A. Agri- cultural Research Service, and Mr. Stephen Shetron, of the U. S. D. A. Soil Conservation Service, for their helpful suggestions and to Mr. Clarence Engberg and Mr. Gilbert Landtiser, of the U. S. D. A. Soil Conservation Service for making available the Conservation Needs Survey Data. The writer also appreciates the helpful criticism that his committee has given. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION .................................................... 1 Need for a Study of this Nature ............................... 1 Purpose of this Study ......................................... 2 PERTINENT LITERATURE.................... ......... ............... 3 EXPLANATION OF TERMS.................................. ......... . 4 CURRENT LAND USE INMECOSTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTIES................ ' 7 ASSUMPTIONS................................... ................ .. 16 CALCULATION OF THE EXPECTED NET INCOME......... ........ . ........ 18 The Calculation of the Expected Gross Income .......... . ....... 18 The Calculation of the Expected Cost of Production ............ 24 The Calculation of the Expected Net Income .................... 28 Results and Discussion ................. ... .................... 28 PLANNING LAND USE USING EXPECTED NET INCOME AS THE CRITERIA ..... 36 LAND USE IN CROPS BY SOIL MANAGEMENT UNITS...... ................ 42 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONeeeeeesoeeseeeeeeeseaoseaseeeeeesseeoeeees 45 THE EXPECTED USE OF CROPLAND AND EXPECTED CROP PRODUCTION ....... 55 SUMMARY................. ...... ............... ............ . ...... 58 RECOMMENDATIONS.............................. ................... 60 NEEDS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH....................... ............... 61 LITERATURE CITED.. ..... ........... ........ ..... .......... . ...... 62 APPENDIX.eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee iii TABLE 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES PAGE The Classification of Soil Management Units and Their Number and Letter Designations ............................ The Proportion of Each Soil Management Unit That is Crapland, Pasture, Forest, or Idle L P ................. 10 (F I) The Expected Yields on Each Soil Management Unit From Cannon and Improved Management, C i O ..... . ................ , W A The Expected Gross Income with Canon Management Prom Corn, Oats, Wheat, and Alfalfa, C '0, on Each Soil W A Management Unit ........................................... 23 The Expected Gross Income with Improved Management of Corn, Oats, Wheat, and Alfalfa, C l O, on Each Soil W A Management Unit ........................................... 25 The Expected Cost of Production with German Management of Corn, Oats, Wheat, and Alfalfa C '0 on Each Soil WA Management Unit ........... . ........... . .......... . ........ 27 The Expected Cost of Production with Improved Management of Corn, Oats, Wheat, and Alfalfa, C '0, on Each Soil W A . Management Unit ....................... . ........ . .......... 29 The Expected Net Income with Conan Management of Corn, Oats, Wheat, and Alfalfa, C ' O, on Each Soil-Management W A Unit .............. . ...................... . ................ The Expected Net Income with Improved Management of Corn, Oats, Wheat, and Alfalfa, C l O, on Each Soil Management W A 30 Unit .................. . ................................... 31 The Expected Net Incomes Prom Various Land Use Sequences on Various Soil Management Units with Canon Management.. . 38,39 The Expected Net Incomes Prom Various Land Use Sequences on Various Soil Management Units with Improved Management. . . ............ , ....... . ......................... 40 ,41 iv TABLE 12. 13. 14. LIST OF TABLES (Continued) PAGE The Expected Percentage of Each Soil Management Unit in Corn, Wheat, and Alfalfa if Land Use Sequences Recommended with Common'Management are Used ............... 43 The Expected Percentage of Each Soil Management Unit in Corn, Wheat, and Alfalfa if Land Use Sequences Recommended with Improved Management are Used ............. 44 The Expected Acreages, Production and Yields of Corn, Wheat, and Alfalfa Under Common and Improved Management Compared to the Current Acreage, Production and Yields of Corn, Wheat, Alfalfa and Other Crops ................... 57 FIGURE 10. 11. 12. 13. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS RAGE The location of Mecosta and Osceola Counties“ ............. The percentage of land in crops (L) in relation to the texture of the primary material by soil management 11 units .......... O OOOOOOOOOOOOO O ......... O I O ........ The percentage of land in crops (L) in relation to the slope of the land by soil management units........ ....... The percentage of land in crops (L) in relation to the natural drainage on level to gently slaping areas by soil management units .............................. . ..... 13 The percentage of land in forest (F) in relation to the texture of the primary material by soil management unit: sssssssss e eeeeeeeeee eee'eeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeee The percentage of land in forest (F) in relation to the slape of the land by soil management units ............... 14 The percentage of land in forest (F) in relation to the natural drainage on level to gently sloping areas by soil management units............................. ....... 14 The percentage of the land left idle (I) in relation to the texture of the primary material by soil management units OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O ...... 0.0.0... ........ O The location of Mecosta and Osceola Counties within "Checklist" areas 3 and 4 .......... .... ....... The relationship of expected gross income to expected net income ....................................... . ....... 32 The effect of slope classes and management on the expected net income from.various crops on soil management unit 4a (well-drained loamy sands to sands) ...................... 34 The effect of natural drainage and management on the expected net income from various crops on soil management units 4a, 4b, and 4c, all on 0-61 slapes ................. 35 The effect of the texture of the primary material and management on the expected net income from various crops on soil management units 2a, 3a, 4a, and 5a, on A and B slopes.... ....... ‘.. ....... ......... FIGURE 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued) PAGE The effect of the texture of the primary material and natural drainage on the percentage of the cropland that alfalfa would occupy if recommended land use sequences were followed under common management on level land (0-21 slope) .................................... .... 49 The effect of the texture of the primary material and natural drainage on the mimimum percentage of the cropland that alfalfa would occupy if recommended land use sequences were followed under improved management level land (0-21 slope) .................................. 49 The effect of slape on the maximum percentage of the crapland that corn would occupy under common management.. 51 The effect of slope on the maximum percentage of the cropland that corn would occupy under improved management ............. . ................................. 51 The effect of the natural drainage on the number of acceptable land use sequences under common management.... 52 The effect of the natural drainage on the number of acceptable land use sequences under improved management.. 52 The effect of the natural drainage on the percentage of cropland in corn under common management .............. 54 The effect of the natural drainage on the percentage of cropland in corn under improved management ............ 54 vii INTRODUCTION Need for a Study of this Nature There are many methods of planning the land use of a certain soil, field, farm, or area. Some of these methods are quite rational while others are less rational. The planning of land use quite often follows a particular need that is felt by the farm operator.or his advisors concerning land use and soil management. If the need is primarily for an adequate livestock feeding program, the land will be used to provide the amounts of grain, roughage, and other feed constituents needed for feed. If the need is primarily for a program which will conserve the soil or the supply of moisture, without regard to income, the land may simply be held under grass or forest cover. However, if the need is primarily for a programwwhich will maximize the returns from a given area, land use will be planned to provide the greatest net income from the soil, field, farm or area. In most cases these three goals are not in opposition. That is, most operators want to follow practices which will minimize the soil and water losses (or hold them'within limits that permit permanent use of these resources), provide adequate feed for a livestock program, and at the same time maximize their net income. It is with the need of maximizing the net income that this study is primarily concerned; namely, the planning of land use using both tech- nologic and economic considerations as the criteria. Purpose of this Study The general purpose of this study is to meet this need for land use planning according to economic as well as technologic considerations. This need will be met within the allowable limits of soil and water loss that will assure a permanent agriculture. There were practical considera- tionsLin determining the scope and extent of this project. One of these practical limitations is the determination of the size of the area to be studied. Ideally, the North Central Region of the United States, Michigan, the Podzol Region, or other large areas might have been selected for this study. These areas were all eliminated, however, because of practical limitations. Since a smaller area had to be chosen, the writer first considered Osceola County because he had worked in that area for two summers on the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Later, the idea of using one county was dropped in favor of a two county area. Another practical limitation also served to restrict the scope and extent of this study. The study was launched with the object in mind 1 that all the potential uSes of the land would be investigated: cropland, permanent pasture, forestry, idle, residential, and urban. These uses _were studied in determining the present use of the land in the two county area. For practical reasons, however, only some the individual crops , .... . ‘ Iv ”*‘I‘TZE L - that are grown in the area were evaluated in determining the use of the cropland. The chief purpose of the study is: l) to demonstrate the need for the use of economic tools in planning land use; 2) to demonstrate land use planning methods using economic considerations; and 3) to consider the results of such a plan on land use and the probable_conse- quences of its adoption. PERTINENT LITERATURE Charles E. Kellogg, Assistant Chief of the Soil Conservation Service in Charge of Soil Surveys, has written of the importance of economic con- siderations in land use planning as follows: "Successful farmers choose the practices for their fields according to two primary considerations: What practices do I need to come near the ideal (arable soil)? How will the costs and returns fit into my farm budget?" (12) Earl O. Heady, professor of agricultural economics at Iowa State College, has shown that the best system of crops or rotations cannot be selected with just the knowledge of physical relationships or with just the knowl- edge of economic considerations, but with both.(12). He also demonstrated in the same article the importance of the economic considerations in the crop-yield relationships when crops are competitive as well as complimen- tary. Earl R. Swanson, associate professor of agricultural economics at the University of Illinois, published a bulletin which reports an ecqr nomic analysis of the Drummer-Flanagan soils, found primarily in east- central Illinois (11). He used linear programing to determine the highest return farming systems on these soils. The bulletin lists three types of farming systems that were selected in order to maximize: l) the labor income per acre of land farmed; 2) the labor income per hour of labor used; and 3) the cash balance per dollar of money spent. He also showed the effect of price changes on these farming systems. EXPLANATION OF TERMS The term "land use sequence" was chosen to denote the order in which crops are grown in the cropping system. In ordinary discourse this would be referred to as a crop rotation. However, it was necessary in this study to refer to this as a land use sequence, because rotation connotes the idea of crops rotating from field to field and is not the best term to use in considering the duration or order of crops on a certain soil or field. Also, the idea of a rotation does not necessarily connote the idea of a certain plan of land use for a certain field or soil, but of a group of fields or soils. The two terms "common management" and "improved management" need explanation. It is realized that no manager or system of management will fit the exact description of common or improved. However, there was need for the consideration of levels of management. The improved level of management is defined as a system which includes the following management practices (8): 1. Has soil tested and applies recommended amounts of lime and fertilizer. 2. Uses recommended fertilizer placement. 3. Uses minimum tillage. 4. Provides adequate drainage. 5. Uses top quality seed. 6. Uses recommended seeding rates. 7. Controls weeds, insects, and diseases. 8. Uses good soil and water conservation practices. 9. Harvests carefully to save the crop. 4 5 10. Stores properly to preserve the quality. 11. Performs management operations at the proper time. The average management is defined as a system which follows some, but not all of the above management practices. The common sanager, in this study, incurs the median cost of fertilizing per acre per year of the farm account book study of this area. The average manager also followed the plow, disc, drag, and plant method of seedbed preparation for corn and oats. In a recent survey of far-dug practices 50 per cent of the farmers that were interviewed used this method of seedbed preparation (9). The "soil management group" and "soil management unit" are terms that are used frequently through this paper. The "soil sanagemant group" refers to a group of soils with similarities in the texture of the pri- mary material and the natural drainage. "Soil management unit" refers to a sub-division of a soil management group on the basis of similari- ties in slope. The texture. natural drainage, and slope groupings and the numbers and letters used to designate each are listed in Table 1. In many cases the 5.5 texture class has been dropped from consideration because of lack of sufficient data or for reasons of practicality. In many cases the A and B slope classes have been combined because of simi- larities in their management. The decision was made to use the terms "expected gross income", "expected production costs", and "expected net income." These terms were used to indicate the anticipated situations when.the manager is making a decision. nam.m oqm.n nqm.m <~m.m Haemaam memofie>ovuhfimeo3 a cue: poem m.m eVaH~93 e no“: poem o.m , can meson .e moo new .m mom ue-saaaos N N a :m _m4 N _m . euaa_en-m m.m gwoecae eu so mN as eN an n~ an eoaoso>oe-aaoa on n a Ma «a «N as as _m~ a new: seam o.n m «n as we as an NH mm on as wm_ mu mu an en _om an an as as can. a.53 .e m an a an so as H a me am nu me e _ao anon macaw .n as on m e a on No as n m anon menu as KN on as an Ne NH no NH es asses on sacs .~ «scam ue-o oaoam no-o «scam uwH-~H «some was-o «scam se-o m+< m+< a u m+< censuses Deanna muwoom .u mauoewuanH .n vocasuvuaaoz .e Au av .Am a use” so .smmaoe .umspm Figure 5. The percentage of land in forest (F) in relation to the texture of the primary material by soil management units. 14 80 - (Texture of primary material) 2 - loam to silty clay loame 70- 3-sandyloam_-_-__-_-__- 4 - loamy sand~——.___ .... ___ ____.__ 60 S - sand (well-dev.)-——--— ———— —- ———-—- “ 5.5 a sand (weakly-dev.)--..- __._.___n.- 50 « 40~ 304 20« Percentage of land in forest (F) 10- 0 A+B C D Increasing slope ___—___} Figure 6. The percentage of land in forest (F) in relation to the slope of the land by soil management units. (Texture of primary material) 80 ‘ 2 - loam to silty clay loam ,‘ 4 - loamy sand ~ 5'." 70 . 5 - sand (well-dev.) ________ U a ,/ g 60 " III”’ M ’’’’’ g 50 a: I”,”” 0% l”,”’” H 40 " ’I”” “3 f o 30 . cm 3 g 20 0 u a 10 . ° . g c Natural drainage (good to poor) -——————9 lation to the Figure 7. The percentage of land in forest (F) in re natural drainage on level to gently sloping areas by soil management units. 15 (Natural drainage and topography) 70 a - well-drained<— (A-l-B (0-61. slope) ' b - imperfectly-drained—- (C (6-122 slope)— —— c - poorly-drained ——————— (D (12-181 slope)—-—--—-— 60 . Percentage of land left idle (I) 2 3 4 5 Texture of primary material (fine to coarse)———) 515 Figure 8.“ The percentage of the land left idle (I) in relation to, the texture of the primary material by soil management units. ASSUMPTIONS Certain assumptions in a study of this type are necessary to proper- ly analyze the data. The conclusions are only valid if the assumptions are met. If the assumptions are not correct, an adjustment would have to be made with the incorporation of the new assumptions. The assump- tions used in this study follow: 1. The simple aggrags of monthly prices received by Michigan farmers for the ten year period from 1949 to 1958 will be the expected prices for farm products. The ten year period, 1949 to 1958, should be a good base for expected prices. The conditions that have produced the prices during the ten years (supply and demand, international tensions, and governmental policy) will probably not change enough to drastically affect prices. The average rates for custom work paid in Michigan indi- cate the expected costs in producing crops. Some dis- crepancy exists between the rates for custom work and the costs of producing crops since the custom rates are slightly lower. This may be explained by analyzing ownership of farm machinery as a form of insurance against not having the machinery available at the time needed for a particular farm operation. The use of custom rates in calcuating production costs is justified since they repre- sent the best information available on costs of using farm.machinery. 16 17 The manager of the land will wish to maximize the net return per acre per year within the acceptable limits of soil and and water loss and select his program of land use accordingly. The practices outlined under the two management systems will be followed. The calculated yields are based on the following of these practices. Adequate drainage will be provided for the naturally imperfect- ly-drained and naturally poorly-drained soils. The yields were calculated.with adequate drainage assumed. Managers following common and improved management systems will receive the same prices. THE CALCULNTION OF THE EXPECTED NET INCOME The Calculation of the EXpected Gross Income The expected net income from.each crop for each soil management unit under the two management levels was calculated. Next, these ex- pected net incomes of the crops were combined into expected net incomes for land use sequences. Then the most profitable sequences were chosen by comparison. In calculating the expected net income that a certain crop will produce on a certain soil management unit, a definite procedure was followed. First, the expected gross income that will accrue for each crop on each soil management unit was calculated. Second, the expected cost of producing each crop on each soil management unit was calculated. Third, the expected net income from each crop on each soil management unit was calculated by subtracting the expected production cost from the expected gross income. This procedure was carried out for both common and improved levels of management in order to compare differences in the expected net income due to level of management. Finally, the ex- pected net incomes of the various crops in land use sequences were cal- culated and compared as to their relative advantage in securing a return from the land. The methods and results of calculating the expected gross income follow: The expected yields for the two management systems were taken from the folder entitled, “Michigan Checklist for Areas 3 and 4" (8).1 1The yields from the Michigan Checklist were for slopes less than 6 per cent. Another study had been made in Michigan that reported yields 18 19 This was an estimation of the yields in an area which contained Mecosta and Osceola Counties as shown in Figure 9. These yields are listed in Table 3. The expected price was determined by taking a simple average of the monthly price data for the ten year period, 1949 to 1958, of prices re- ceived by Michigan farmers. These prices were: Corn -------------- $ 1.34 per bu. Wheat ------------- 2.00 per bu. Oats -------------- 0.72 per bu. Alfalfa hay ------- 22.13 per ton (2) The expected prices and the expected crop yields were multiplied for each soil management unit in order to calculate the expected gross in- come: Expected Price X Expected Yield 3 Expected Gross Income The expected gross income under a system of common management is given below in Table 4. The data has been tabulated so that the expected gross income in dollars per acre for four different crops are arranged in on slopes less than 6 per cent and over 6 per cent. Yields on slopes greater than 6 per cent were calculated by employing the following simple proportion: where Yfm e yield on slopes less than 6 per cent from the Michigan Checklist st a yield on sloPes less than 6 per cent from the Sanilac report ch 3 yield on 6 to 12 per cent slopes in the two county area (unknown) Yes a yield on 6 to 12 per cent slopes from the Sanilac report. 20 "Checklist" Areas 3 G: 4 < Osceola County Mecosta County Figure 9. The location of Mecosta and Osceola Counties within "Checklist" Areas 3 and 4. .aouo mnemoooua one as moocouommav ou moumsnvm coon uoc s>m£ space» omens .mumoz 3mm e no vowuoa e uo>o vouooaxo on use use» mfioeh cums on» one zany .uocofiom Haom ca uuoxuoa mo oocofiuoaxo one no mouse one nausea unseat mna was owl_wa Jr N.H _mH m.o_ o“ ¢.o ~H Nu NN ma OH NH ma mamm .m m.~ 0H n.~_ mg m.H _fia ¢.H_ ¢~ m.H ma on um mm mm mH MN NN mN mN Jr vase hamoq .e 21 ¢.N_ mm ¢.~ mu o.H ma o.H _mH m.H_ ON as me oe He _oN _ow an em on mm anon segue .m o.~_ nu m.~ mu ~.~ _HN n.H _HN m.N_ nN BeoH mafia me on oq mo mm on mm on toe oq madam cu Smog .N omofim Rwuo oaofim fieuo eaofim RanNH umofim NNHno (wmofim solo m+<. m+< a o m+< Hmwuoumz mumawum macaque voewsuv . ago no ousuxoh Ihfihoom. U ILAHUUMHHUQEH.D VOGwQHUIHHflna .fl mammuwoaoa use «macaque HZMZMUoemzu az< zomzcu_zaea gaze azmzmeezez snow ween 2o menses neeommxu may .n memes 22 swim i warm leis...“ M... eemm .n m.~ an ~.~ NN m.~_ ON m.~ _eN m.N_ nu .Om _om aae* es en.» Ne we me me an.» sauce .e e.n as e.« as H.m an a.« an ~.m mm .3 _3. ..N .1 as. $_ 3. 4w. _ 3. All ...w. 53 base .m m.n .ee m.m as a." on e.m on e.m_ oe . as me 05— as am _am on _ew me no anon sues hogan ou lion .N «seem Ne-o oeoem No-0 «scam ems-~e «scam swe-o «swam so-o m+< m+< n o m+< 7.33s: hue—Sum macaque consent ecu mo ousuxoa amfiuoom.u uhfiuoowuanH.n mocwmum-aaoz .m ace-HonOH use owmewmun HzmxmuommzH noncwuuoo n .m unn Figure 12. The effect of natural drainage and management on the expected net income from various crops on soil management units 4a, 4b, and 4c, all on 0-62 slopes. 45 40 35 3O 25 20 15 Expected net incomes per acre per year Ul IoJ k! I Oat-imp. mgt. m\ \ s‘ ‘ “ .\ ‘ .~~_--~- -~—-_- ‘ 3 - 4 “3 Texture of primary material (fine to coarse)———e Figure 13. The effect of the texture of the primary material and management on the expected net income from various crops on soil management units 2a, 3a, 4a, and 5a, on A and B slopes. PLANNING LAND USE USING EXPECTED NET INCOME PER.ACRE AS THE CRITERLA It has been one of the prime goals of the present study to show the effect of using the expected net income per acre in land use planning. It was decided that, in selecting land use sequences on the various soil management groups, only the sequences that would not permit an excessive amount of soil erosion would be considered.1 The first step in select- ing the most profitable land use sequence is to take the alternative sequences and calculate the expected net income per acre per year for each sequence. This expected net income per acre per year was calculated by adding the expected net incomes of the individual crops and dividing by the total number of years in the sequence. Then the sequences may be compared as to their relative profitability. In some of the soil manage- ment groups a problem arose as to how to select the right number of the most profitable sequences. This occurred in some cases where there was a large number of sequences producing a similar expected net income per acre and in other cases where there was a certain sequence that produced an expected net income per acre in excess of the other sequences. The problem, in short, was where to draw the line. It was decided to set the arbitrary acceptability line at ninety per cent of the highest expected net income producing sequence. The acceptable sequences would then for determining sequences that would not permit an ,A rotation index number was selected for each soil management unit from Tables 12 through 15 of the manage- ment guide (2). 200 feet length of slope was assumed. Then the se— h quences (rotations) that had index numbers equal to or greater than t e index number for the soil management unit were considered acceptable. The rotation index number is based on a 3 ton per acre permissible annual soil loss on soil management groups 2a, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, and 3c and a 4 ton per acre permissible annual soil loss on soil management groups 4a, 4b, 4c, 5a, 5b, and 5c. 36 1The procedure excess soil loss was as follows: 37 include all the sequences that would produce an expected net income within ten per cent of the most profitable sequence. The expected net incomes per acre for each of the sequences in each soil management unit are listed in Tables 10 and 11 for common management and improved manage- ment, respectively. 38 ma.ee <0 ms.nc <0 ee.a <0 so.me <3 Hm.we <<00 no.0H <3 am.aa <<0 as.mm <<0 .ma.oa <30 ea.o~ <30 a~.me <30 om.oa <<0 m~.o~ <<00 mo.m~ <2 no.0a <<00 mm.H~ <<<00 mn.o~ <<<00 o~.- <_xoem mmxo0zH amz oua0umxm may .0“ mcmOMmZH EHHB nmnzmzzocmm mmUZMDOmm mmD nz figure 14. The effect of the texture of the primary material and natural drainage on the percentage-of the cropland that alfalfa would occupy if recomended land use sequences were followed under cannon management on level land (0-2‘7. slope). 7O '1 i . - d ~ / ’ c poorly draine 7/ . E0604 '33 a. well-drained /’ O 8 I, 3'0 /’<-b. imperfectly-drained 3'3 50 ~ / u o / 44 k / o 0 t3 / o -4 -' $303 .. U H 40 “ 1.3. _ ' A / 8 . \‘K O U kk/ 3 e e .r: a.- u u o. T 1 l 3 4 5 Texture of the primary material (fine to coarse)—-9- N Figure 15. The effect of the texture of the primary material and natural drainage on the mimiwm percentage of the crepland that alfalfa would occupy if race-leaded land use sequences were followed under improved management 'level land (0-21 slope). 50 age of land in corn was less than on the more gradual lepes as illus— trated in Figures 16 and 17. However, on the gentler slopes the longer land use sequences were just as acceptable as on the steeper slopes. In soil management groups 2a, 3a, and 4a (wellrdrained loams to silty clay loams, sandy loams, and loamy sands) under common management, the se- quences WAAAA, WAAA, and where applicable CWAAAA are the most acceptable independent of the slope. 0n soil management group 5a (well-drained sands) WAAAA is the only acceptable land use sequence under common manage- ment. Under improved management of soil management groups 2a and 3a Owell-drained loams to silty clay loams and sandy loams) there is a re- lationship whereby on the steeper slopes, the longer sequence and those sequences which have a longer duration of alfalfa are the more acceptable. On soil management groups 4a and 5a (well-drained loamy sands to sands) under good management the situation is much the same as for the common management: There is no relationship present between slope and length of land use sequence. However, the potentially useful number of sequences is greatly increased with improved management as shown by Figures 18 and 19. It would appear that, under the assumption of prices and costs that were used, the improved management of soil management group 2a (well- drained loams to silty clay loams) tend to make differences in slope more critical. This is due to the possibility of more intensive use of the flatter lands in this soil groups. This fact is important to the farm manager, student of farm management and land utilization, and the extension personnel in these fields because it demonstrates again the need for an economic analyses to plan land use. One would suspect that longer sequences would be more favorable for the steeper slopes. This suspicion is not borne out by an economic analysis and must be disregarded Percentage of cropland in corn 10 O A 51 1 F ------------ \:p_.Sandy loam b.- Increasing slope-——————) Figure 16. The effect of slepe on the maximum percentage of the cropland that corn would occupy under common management. Percentage of cropland in corn b O to O N O (5—.Loam to silty clay loam \ Figure 19. The effect of the natural drainage on the number of acceptable land use sequences under improved management. 53 for the present price and cost situation. 3) Natural drainage of the soil has an effect on the acceptability of land use sequences. One of the main relationships seems to be that in the more poorly drained soils, there are more acceptable sequences than in the naturally better drained soils of the same texture class under common management as shown in Fig- ures 18 and 19. The most probable reason for this is that in the natu- rally more well drained soils there is a critical need for moisture at certain times in the growing season: thereby limiting certain land use sequences especially short sequences with a longer duration of corn and wheat. This relationship is not evident in soil management group 5a (sands) under common management and not very evident in any of the soil management units under improved management as shown in Figures 20 and 21. Oats were eliminated early in this study of cropping sequences be- cause they tended to make any seammce less profitable. This is very important also because it demonstrates that a certain crop if unprofit- able, should be removed from the sequence and other suitable crops sub- stituted. 54 25 - Loam to silty clay loam 20 l 10 0 ~‘ ~~ —‘ -“_ ‘ —.~. —‘ Loamy sand___—3::ZZfigt33—r‘”§;nd~ .__._w.___n.3=5,&_.,E;r___ ___._____Hi a b ‘ c Natural drainage (good to poor)---9 Percentage of cropland in corn Figure 20. The effect of the natural drainage on the percentage of cropland in corn under common management. 45 0 ’Loam to silty _____________________ W ' E _/ 8 /10__Sandy loam t: 35 // H / a x Q / ...; / 8‘ X 3 25‘____,_/:________-__._ 06 ,’ Loamy sand-—-S\‘-—\__ / "—-— E? 0:— ___ ea Sand-7‘ o 15- U 3 o a. 0 0 30 a b c , Natural drainage (good to poor)-———_3_0p Figure 21. The effect of the natural drainage on the percentage of crapland in corn under improved management. THE EXPECTED USE OF CROPLAND AND CROP PRODUCTION It was decided to compare the expected use of cropland, the expected crop production, and the expected crop yields with the current use of crapland, current crop production, and current crop yields. In order to accomplish this, the following procedure was adopted: 1) The percentage of each crop on each soil management group or unit was multiplied by the cropland (L) acreage in that soil management group or unit. The percent- ages were taken from Tables 10 and 11 and the acreages of cropland (L) in each soil management unit or group were taken from the Conservation Needs Survey. These acreages were then totalled for each crop. 2) These calculated and expected acreages for each soil management unit were mul- tiplied by the expected crop yields for each soil management unit, re- spectively. These expected yields are identical to the expected yields used earlier to calculate expected gross income. These crop production figures were then totalled for each crop. The cropland (L) in the soil groups under study amounted to 194,863 acres. The total cropland (L) in the two county area was 222,422 acres according to the Conservation Needs Study. Therefore, the acreage totals for each crop and the crop production totals for each crop were multiplied by the factor, 222,422 , in order to calculate the expected acreages and production of eizh’gggp for the two county area. The calculated crop production figures were divided by the calculated acreages to determine average crop yields. Then, the calculated crop acreages, crop production estimates, and aver- age yields for both common and improved management were compared to the current acreage of these crops, the amount of crops produced, and current 55 56 average yields as reported in the 1954 Census of Agriculture for the two county area (13). These values are listed in Table 14. It should be noted from Table 14 that under commonumanagement less than one-half as much land would be planted to corn for grain and that about one—half as much corn would be produced for grain as is currently produced for grain. Also under common management nearly five times as much land would be seeded to wheat producing three and one-half times as much wheat as the current amount. This, of course, assumes no govern- mental restriction on acreages. Over twice as much cropland would be in hay under common management as is currently in hay. Under improved management more than twice as much land would be devoted to corn for grain, with nearly four times as much corn produced for grain as is currently produced. Over four times as much land would be seeded to wheat, under improved management, producing over five times the current amount of wheat. Approximately twice as much land would be in hay under improved management as is currently used for that purpose. 57 .30530003 0030-330 use 30300003 0303» es3eum use .003euw 30:00 .ueemsxono .me3uen .033 00053033 .003z3 000.0 000.0 000.0 030.30 000.03 0.00 300.030 000.03 0.00, 000.000 000.03 00003003000 no 030000 #003 o o o 0 000.333 3.3m m3n.nmm.3 000.00 3.00 003.3om.3 003.00 oneseweuml. 03aoooou ve>oumaH o o o 0 003.003 0.33 onN.3nm 030.30 0.30 000.000 000.0 uneaemenm: o3aoooou season ‘ 303003 003000003- 303003- 303000000 omeeuu< eweeuo< unsound emeeuo< ewee3u< 03030 u03uoavO3m encouod 03030 0033090033 eweeuud .000: one: 03 e 330 wAmNMMNV 3 300000 0000 .000 0030030 0000: 0000 00000 00030 000.0030000 .3000: .0000 00 003033 000 0033000000 .0000000 3000000 003 03 00000000 3000000000000000003 000 000000 00000 0030000 000 .3000: .0000 00 000033 000 0033000000 .00000000 00300000 003 .03 03003 SUMMARY It was one of the purposes of this study to calculate the expected net incomes from certain crops grown on each soil management unit under two levels of management. Expected net incomes from certain land use sequences were also calculated under the two management levels. The ex- pected net incomes from the crops and land use sequences were compared to determine the most economic use of the land. The improved level of management in all cases produced a higher expected net income than the common level of management. The expected gross income correlated very closely with the expected net income because of the constancy of the ex- pected production costs. The characteristics of the soil were shown to influence the expected net income. Thus, those on the steeper slopes had lower expected net incomes than those on the gentler slopes. The naturally more poorly-drained soils brought about higher expected net incomes than their better drained counterparts. Likewise the expected net incomes on the soils developed from the finer-textured primary mate- rials were higher than those obtained on soils developed from coarser- textured primary materials. The effects of the level of management were again noted in the re- sults of the sequences which were found to be economically acceptable. The effect of the improved level of management was to nullify some of the effects of soil properties on economic acceptability of certain crap sequences. The longer land use sequences (which most generally includes those sequences containing a larger proportion of small grain and alfalfa) are usually the more economically acceptable. 58 59 The characteristics of the soil have an effect on the acceptability of a land use sequence. On the soils that were developed in finer tex- tured primary material, the shorter land use sequences and sequences using less alfalfa are more acceptable than on coarser-textured primary materials. 0n the steeper slopes the sequences using more alfalfa are more acceptable. In the naturally more poorly-drained soils there are more acceptable land use sequences to choose from and corn occupies the land a greater part of the time. '3» RECOMMENDATIONS Several conclusions may be drawn from the results of this study. First, the importance of making an economic analysis in order to plan land use has been shown. Second, the importance of determining the level of management has been clearly demonstrated to be significant in determining the land use program. The importance of knowing the soil management units has also been demonstrated. 60 NEEDS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Throughout the course of this study a number of research needs have been apparent to the writer. These needs are listed here as: 1. Comparisons of economic considerations should not only be cropping but forestry, idle, permanent pasture, and industrial or urban land uses on the various soil management groups or units. 2. Effects of different expected costs and prices on the most economic and technologically acceptable land use on the various soil management groups or units. 3. More accurate yield, production cost and management data on the soil management groups or units. 4. Comparisons of alternative land uses by an economic con- sideration of the alternative livestock enterprises and their feed requirements in conjunction with various soil groups or units. 5. Determination of the minimum or optimum size of farm.on the various soil management groups or units from the above economic consideration of alternative uses. 61 10. LITERATURE CITED CLANAHAN, D. L., and HILDEBRAND, S. C. Fact Sheet for‘Michiggn ggriculture Seedigg Rates and Weight per Bushel of Field Crgp_. (Michigan State University, Cooperative Extension Service, Department of Farm Crops) East Lansing, Michigan. EDWOOD, E. M., et a1. Farming Todgy, (Michigan State University, Cooperative Extension Service, Department of Agricultural Economics, A. BC. 755, Area 10) East Lansing, Michigan, 1959. EINOOD, E. M. , and QUENEMOE-N, M. E. Rates for Custom Work in ‘Michigan. (Michigan State University, Gosperative Extension Service, Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension Folder F-l6l Rev.) East Lansing, Michigan, 1957. A Guide for the Managgment of Soils Farm Crgps and Pastures in Michigan. (Michigan State University, Departments of Soils, Farm Crops, and Horticulture; Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station; and the Soil Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture) East Lansing, Michigan, 1959. Fertilizer Recommendations for Michigan Crops. (Michigan State University, Cooperative Extension Service, Departments of Soil Science and Horticulture, Extension Bulletin E-159 llth Revision) East Lansing, Michigan, 1959. HENEBERRY, W., SCHAIRER, D., and.WHITESIDE, E. P. Appraisal of Farm Real Estate in Arenac County for Property Tax Assessment. HILL, E. B., and MAWBY, R. G. Types of Farming in Michigan. (Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Agricultural Economics, Special Bulletin 206, 2nd Revision) East Lansing, Michigan, 1954. Michigan Checklist for Areas 3 and 4. (National Plant Food Institute, Midwest Regional Office in Cooperation with Michigan State University). NIELSON, J., and BITTNER, R. F. Farm Practice Adoption in Michigan. (Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Agricultural Economics, Technical Bulletin 263) East Lansing, Michigan, 1958. SCHNEIDER, I. F., et a1. Soils and Their Management Needs Sanilac County, Michigan. (Michigan State University, Soil Science Department and the Soil Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture) East Lansing, Michigan. 62 11. 12. 13. 63 SWANSON, E. R. Highest Return Farming Systems for Drummer-Flanaggn Soils. (University of Illinois, Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 629) Urbana, Illinois, 1958. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUETURE, Soil The Yearbook of Agriculture 1957. (85th Congress, lst session; House Document No. 30.) Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1957. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, United States Census of Agriculture 1954, Vol. 1 Counties and State Economic Areas, Part 6 Michigan, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1956. An example of the budget method used in this study is given belcw for both management levels. ment unit 26A. Common Management EXpected gross income (45 bu. x $1.34) §60.30 Plowing $ 5.00 Discing 1.50 Dragging 1.25 Planting 1.75 Fertilizer 5.35 Seed 2.00 Cultivation (3X) 4.50 Picking and shelling 7.50 5% interest on land 6.29 Sub—total 35.14 10% misc. 3.51 Total Expected Production Cost $38.65 Expected Net Income $21.65 64 Improved Management Expected gross income The example is for corn plantei on manage- (70 bu. x $1.34) $90.30 Plowing $ 5.00 Discing 1.50 Dragging 1.25 Planting 1.75 Total 9.50 60% of 9.50 5.70 Fertilizer 15.05 Seed 2.00 Cultivation (2X) 3.00 Picking and shelling 7.50 5% interest on land 6.29 Sub-total 3 .54 10% misc. 3.95 Total EXpected Prsduction C33t 333.49 Expected Net Income $50.3l mm" ”SE om ROD-EA use cm uuunummlmmm 1111qu 1 ST 1 5 0 3 l0 ”‘3 mg 2 1 3 711111!