IN FO R M A TIO N TO USERS This dissertation was produced from a m icrofilm copy of the original document. W hile the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The follow ing explanation o f techniques is provided to help you markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. understand 1. The sign or "ta rg e t” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Pagejs)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along w ith adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you com plete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated w ith a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected th at the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You w ill find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being p h o to g ra p h e d the photographer follow ed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections w ith a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The m ajority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding o f the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs” may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order D epartm ent, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 A Xerox Education Company I 73-5480 SAD E G H I , Javad Mirmohaimnad, 1942AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE COFN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IN SOUTHWEST MICHIGAN. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1972 Economics, agricultural U n iv e rs ity M icro film s, A XEROX C o m p an y , A n n A rb o r, M ic h ig a n AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE CORN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IN SOUTHWEST MICHIGAN By Javad Mirmohammad Sadeghi A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Agricultural Economics 1972 PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company ABSTRACT AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE CORN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IN SOUTHWEST MICHIGAN By Javad Mirmohammad Sadeghi Corn is grown on more acres of land than any other crop in Michigan and is concentrated in the Southern, Central, and Thumb regions. Shortage of rainfall and its distribution especially in the critical period of growing season often results in a substantial reduction in yields of corn. Corn growers who rely only on rainfall are faced with yield uncertainty. This is especially true for the farms with coarse textured soils due to their low waterholding capacity. The quantity of summer rainfall in major corngrowing regions of Michigan varies considerably from year to year. In most of the years growing season rainfall was less than optimum water requirement for corn. Supplemental irrigation can supply the water needs not met by rainfall. duce uncertainty. It can increase corn yield and re­ However, the question of whether it is Javad Mirmohammad Sadeghi economically profitable to invest in an irrigation system is of prime importance for many farmers. The primary objective of this study was to analyze the economic profitability of investment in alternative sprinkler irrigation systems for field corn in southwest Michigan. Systems of hand-moved giant sprinkler, self- propelled giant sprinkler, sidered. 1. and central pivot were con­ The specific objectives were: To determine the investment, ownership and operat­ ing costs, and increased output for alternative irrigation systems. 2. To determine the profitability of irrigation versus non-irrigation of corn. 3. To determine the break-even yields, corn prices, and wage rates for alternative systems. 4. To study the economic profitability of investing in highly productive c upland without irrigation versus investing in more droughty, less costly land and an irrigation system. Partial budgeting and break-even techniques were employed to analyze the economic profitability of invest­ ment in the three irrigation systems. Man-influenced variables, weather variables, and type of the soil were considered. This study was based largely on the data Javad Mirmohammad Sadeghi received from the personal interviews with corn irrigators in St. Joseph and Cass counties. The ownership and operating costs and increased yields for three rates of water application were calcu­ lated. costs) The total annual costs (ownership and operating ranged from $37 to $55 per acre depending upon the rates of water application per acre and the types of irri­ gation system used. The increased yields ranged from 55 to 9 0 bushels per acre for different rates of water application. The results on the profitability of irrigating corn showed that corn irrigation on sandy loam soils in southwest Michigan is profitable when coupled with good corn production management and average climate conditions. The break-even results showed that added yields of 2 6 to 5 5 bushels per acre (depending upon the rate of water a pplied, type of the system, and the corn prices) were necessary to compensate for the costs. The break­ even corn prices ranged from $.52 to $.80 per bushel. The break-even corn prices were also estimated given low yield responses. In this case break-even prices ranged from $.67 to $1.26 per bushel. The economic profitability of investment in highly productive land without irrigation as an alternative investment in more droughty, less costly land and in­ vestment in an irrigation system was analyzed. The Javad Mirmohammad Sadeghi results showed that it was more profitable to invest in less productive land and in a self-propelled giant sprink­ ler system than investing in highly productive land and no irrigation. To my mother and father ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my deep gratitude to Professor C. R. Hoglund, chairman of the thesis committee, for his assistance, encouragement, and guidance throughout this study. I would like to convey my appreciation to the members of the committee: E. H. Kidder, Dr. Dr. L. J. Connor, Professor R. E. Lucas, is also my major professor, and Dr. R. D. Stevens, who for their constructive assist­ ance and suggestions. The comments on the final draft by Drs. G. L. Johnson and L. Manderscheid are also appreciated. Special thanks to F. J. Henningsen and F. C. Sackrider who facilitated my interviews with the farmers, to the cooperating corn growers, and to dealers of irri­ gation equipment who helped in collecting the data. iii TABLE OP CONTENTS Chapter I. Page INTRODUCTION ................................ A. B. C. II. The P r o b l e m .......................... Objectives............................. Previous Studies...................... 3 4 5 VARIABLES AFFECTING CORN YIELD .............. 9 A. Man-Influenced Variables ............. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. B. C. Water Requirements for Corn. . . Plant Population ............... Fertilizer ............. Type of Seed................ Pesticide.......................... Date of Planting and Harvesting . Weather Variables C. 11 13 13 14 15 15 16 Precipitation . . . . . . . Temperature and Humidity. . . . 17 19 Soil T y p e ............................. 21 1. 2. 22 23 Water-Holding Capacity . . . . Water Intake...................... M E T H O D O L O G Y ...................... A. B. 9 ................... 1. 2. III. 1 24 Area of Study.......................... Sprinkler Irrigation Systems. . . . 24 26 1. 2. 3. 26 26 27 Water Source...................... Basic Units of a Sprinkler System. System Classification............. Sprinkler Irrigations Systems Studied. 28 1. 2. 30 31 Irrigation Capacity of the Systems Hand-Moved Giant Sprinklers. . . iv Chapter Page 3. 4. D. Self-Propelled Giant Sprinklers , Central P i v o t .................... 33 36 Economic Framework and Methodologies U ?ed.................... 37 1. 2. Capital Investment Decision M a k i n g .......................... Estimation of Input-Output Data Needed in A n a l y s i s ............. a. b. E. * 41 42 43 Added R e t u r n s .................... Added Costs........................ Net Returns....................... 44 44 44 Break-Even Analysis . . . . . . Alternative Investment Opportunities. Data— Sources and Limitations . . . 1. 2. 3. 4. 44 45 45 Sources of D a t a ................. Yield D a t a ........................ a. b. IV. 41 Partial Budgeting .................... 1. 2. 3. F. G. H. Yield Estimates . . . . Cost E s t i m a t e s ........ 37 45 46 Farm D a t a ............... Experimental Results . . . 4 6 47 Cost Data . . . . . . . . Data L i m i t a t i o n ................. 52 52 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ............. 54 A. Investments, Costs, and Increased Output for Three Irrigation Systems . 1. 2. Estimated Corn Yields . . . . Costs for Alternative Systems. a. b. c. B. 54 . 54 57 Investment and Annual Ownership Costs ............. Annual Operating Costs. . . Total Annual Costs per Acre . 57 63 69 Profitability of Irrigating Corn . v . 69 Chapter Page 1. 2. C. ................. 74 Break-Even Yields. . . . . . Break-Even Corn Prices . . . . Break-Even Wage Rates . . . . Alternative Investment Opportunities. 1. 2. V. 72 73 Break-Even Analysis 1. 2. 3. D. Costs and Returns for Alternative Systems ............. Conclusions....................... 74 76 78 81 Investment Opportunities Explored R e s u l t s ........................... 82 84 SUMMARY AND C O N C L U S I O N S .................... 86 A. B. S u m m a r y ............................... C o n c l u s i o n s ........................... 1. 86 88 Investments, Costs, and Increased Output for Three Irrigation Systems ............. Profitability of Irrigating Corn. Break-Even Points................. 89 91 93 a. b. c. Break-Even Yields . . . . Break-Even Corn Prices. . Break-Even Wage Rates . . . 93 93 94 Alternative Investment Opportunities .................... 95 Limitations of the Study and Further Research Needs ............. 96 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................ 98 2. 3. 4. C. APPENDIX 104 Vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 2. 3. 4. Page Corn Average Yields, Irrigation Water Applied, Rainfall, Plant Population, and Fertilizer Application, 1970, 1971, and N o r m a l ....................................... 10 Rainfall in Major Corn-Growing Areas, Michigan (30-Year Average 1 9 3 1 - 1 9 6 0 ) . . . 18 Frequency and Amount of July Rainfall in Major Corn-Growing Regions of Michigan (30-Year 1931-1960)....................... Average Growing Season Temperature in St. Joseph County and Other Locations in Lower Michigan . . . . . . . . . 20 . 5. Irrigated and Non-Irrigated Crop Acres, 1971 6. Total Acres Irrigated by Different Systems, 1971........................................ 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 21 . 25 29 Average Acres of Different Crops Irrigated by the Three Systems Studied, 1971. . . . Rainfall in St. Joseph County, 1970, 1971, and 30-Year Average....................... 31 46 Corn Average Yields, Irrigation Water Applied, Rainfall, Plant Population, and Fertilizer Applications, 1970, 1971, and Normal . . . . . . 48 Corn Average Irrigated Yields, Irrigation Water Applied, and Rainfall, 1971 . . . . 49 Corn Average Yields, Irrigation Water Applied, and Rainfall, Montcalm County vii Table 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Page Estimated Investment and Ownership Costs for Hand-Moved Giant Sprinkler Irrigation System to Irrigate 110 A c r e s ................ Estimated Investment and Ownership Costs for Self-Propelled Giant Sprinkler Irrigation System to Irrigate 110 Acres . 58 . Estimated Investment and Ownership Costs for Central Pivot Irrigation System to Irrigate 140 A c r e s ........................... 59 60 Estimated Annual Operating Costs for Hand-Moved Giant Sprinkler to Irrigate 110 Acres.......................................... 64 Estimated Annual Operating Costs for SelfPropelled Giant Sprinkler to Irrigate 110 Acres.................................... 65 Estimated Annual Operating Costs for Central Pivot to Irrigate 140 A c r e s .............. ... 66 Annual Ownership and Operating Costs per Acre for Hand-Moved, Self-Propelled Giant Sprinkler, and Central Pivot Irrigation S y s t e m s ....................................... 70 Added Returns, Added Costs, and Net Returns for the Three Irrigation Systems; Three Irrigation Rates and Three Corn Prices. . 71 Break-Even Yields for the Three Irrigation Systems for Three Corn Prices— Additional Bushels of Corn Required to Offset the Costs. 75 Break-Even Corn Prices for the Three Irri­ gation Systems................................. 77 Corn— Annual Costs and Returns for Two Alternative Investments of $51,700 . . . . 83 A— 1. Irrigated and Non-Irrigated Crop Acres and Size of the Farm, 1 9 7 1 ...........................105 A-2. Crop Acres Irrigated by System, 1971 . . . . 106 A- 3. Corn Yield, Irrigation Water Applied, Rainfall, Plant Population, and Fertilizer Application........................................107 viii Table Page A-4. Corn Average Yields, Irrigation Water Applied, Rainfall, Plant Population, and Fertilizer Application--Montcalm County Trial and Farmers' D a t a ................. 108 A - 5. Seed Varieties Used for Irrigated and NonIrrigated Corn, 1 9 7 1 ..................... 109 A - 6. Date of Planting and Harvesting for Irrigated and Non-Irrigated Corn . . . . A-7. A-8. Pumping Unit, Pipe Lines, and Sprinklers of Hand-Moved Giant Sprinkler Systems, 1971. 110 . Pumping Unit, Pipe Lines, and Sprinkler of Self-Propelled Giant Sprinkler Systems, 1971......................................... 112 ix Ill LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Page The Relative Influence of Monthly Rainfall on Corn Yield in the Corn Belt . . . . 12 2. Illustration of Sprinkler Movements on a 32 Lateral L i n e .................... 3. The Possible Corn Yield-Irrigation Response for the Interviewed Farmers x . . 56 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Water is one of the limiting factors in producing high yields of corn in Southwest Michigan. Water shortages during the growing season, especially during the critical silking and tasselling periods, often result in substan­ tial yield reductions. Low cost fertilizer, improved seeds, higher plant populations, and other cultural prac­ tices have made irrigation more profitable in recent years. Corn is grown on more acres of land than any other field crop in Michigan and is concentrated in eight coun­ ties located in the Southern, Central, and Thumb regions [57, p. 16]. In 1971, 2,230,000 acres of corn were har­ vested in Michigan. Of this total, 1,700,000 acres were harvested for grain, 505,000 acres for silage, and 25,000 acres for forage. This represents 37 per cent of the total Michigan field crop acreage. in St. Joseph County 63,9 00 acres of corn were harvested and in Cass County 55,600 acres were harvested in 1971. Irrigation is increasing in Michigan. Between 1958 and 1970 the amount of irrigated land for all crops in 1 Michigan increased from 68,481 acres to 102,625"^ acres, or by 49 per cent (33, p. 9], Total crop acres irrigated in St. Joseph County during 1970 were reported between 3,000 and 4,000 acres and in Cass County between 1,000 and 2,000 acres [33]. The acreage irrigated in Michigan was pro­ jected to reach 210,000 acres by 1975 [14, Table 2]. The quantity of summer rainfall in the major corn growing regions of Michigan varies considerably from year to year (Tables 2 and 3). In most of the years, the July rainfall was less than optimum water requirement for corn. Supplemental irrigation can supply the water needs not met by rainfall. However, the question of whether it is eco­ nomically feasible to invest in an irrigation system is of prime importance for many farmers. The primary objec­ tive of this study was to analyze costs and returns in irrigating field corn. Fourteen large-scale farmers who were irrigating corn in St. Joseph and Cass counties were interviewed during the summer and fall of 1971 relative to acres irrigated, irrigation practices followed, and investments and costs for their operations. The data received from cooperating farmers formed the basis of the estimates used in this study. However, the data was compared and contrasted with selected irrigation technical reports, corn experimental data, and interviews with dealers of irrigation systems. ■^Another estimate for irrigated acreage in Michi­ gan was 138,800 acres in 1969 [14, Table 4]. 3 A. The Problem Corn yields are highly dependent upon the quantity of water available, especially during the critical periods of its growing season. Shortages of rainfall and its distribution often results in substantial reductions in yield of corn. Corn growers who rely only on rainfall are faced with yield uncertainty. This is especially true for the farms with coarse textured, droughty soil, due to their low water-holding capacity. For farmers who do not irrigate, optimum corn cultural practices such as plant population per acre and fertilizer application cannot be achieved because of the uncertainty of rainfall. Supplemental irrigation can increase average corn yield and reduce its uncertainty. However, the profita­ bility of investing in an irrigation system varies for different farmers due to differences in their managerial skills and degree of technology applied in growing corn, to differences in soil type, weather variables, and in the timing and quantities of irrigation water applied. Because of these on-the-farm variables, it is difficult to arrive at a single answer as to whether it is economi­ cally feasible to irrigate corn. Several techniques are available to analyze the economic profitability of capital investment alternatives. These techniques include capital budgeting, partial budgeting, and break-even analysis. There are advantages 4 and disadvantages for each of these techniques III, pp. 37-40). (Chapter For example present values and internal rate of returns could be determined by capital budgeting, whereas, break-even approach is more appropriate for decision making under the conditions of uncertainty. Partial budgeting results are easier for farmers to inter­ pret. In partial budgeting average costs are estimated. These costs will be used to determine the break-even points. In this study partial budgeting and break-even techniques will be employed to analyze the economic profitability of investment in alternative irrigation systems. B. Objectives The primary objective of this study was to analyze the economic profitability of investment in alternative sprinkler irrigation systems for field corn in southwest Michigan. Hand-moved giant sprinkler, self-propelled giant sprinkler, and central pivot systems were considered. The specific objectives were; 1. To determine the investment, ownership and operating costs, and increased output for alter­ native sprinkler irrigation systems. 2. To determine the profitability of irrigation versus non-irrigation of corn in southwest Michigan. 5 3. To determine the break-even yields, corn prices, and wage rates for the three types of systems. The break-even wage rates were determined only for the two systems of hand-moved and selfpropelled giant sprinklers. A prior assumption to this objective {break-even wage rate), was that farmers would be willing to shift from handmoved giant sprinkler to the more costly selfpropelled giant sprinkler (the actual data showed that this shift has occurred in past years, and it was observed that new irrigators have purchased and are planning to buy self-propelled rather than hand-moved systems). 4. To study the economic profitability of investing in highly productive cropland without irrigation versus investing in more droughty, less costly land and an irrigation system. C. Previous Studies Several studies of the economics of irrigation have been completed. Some of these studies considered costs and returns in the economic analysis of irrigation investment [1, 3, 9, 16, 17, 23, 37, 47]. Some studies placed major emphasis on costs of different irrigation systems [29, 30, 36, 52). A group of studies were on the effect of weather variables and/or man-influenced vari­ ables and soil type on corn yield. Studies by Rossman 6 [39, 40, 41, 43] and others [12, 13, 31] compared irri­ gated and non-irrigated corn; the data was provided from field experiments. In other studies [2, 27, 44] time series and cross section data from different regions were used to analyze the effect of variables on corn yield. Another category of studies was carried out mainly on technical aspects of different irrigation systems and their suitability for different crops, conditions soils, and weather [4, 6, 18]. A study by Stauber [47] was carried out to develop a general analytical method for making an economic evalu­ ation of the feasibility of investment in irrigation facilities in subhumid areas. The internal rate of return was estimated by using a dynamic programming Markov chain) model. (discrete Yield response surface was estimated by a non-linear regression technique using data from corn experimental results in Missouri. Internal rate of return was also used in a study by Reutlinger and Seagraves [37]. The study was on eco­ nomics of supplemental irrigation of tobacco. moisture index was derived. A soil Covariance analysis was used to estimate added yields as a function of soil moisture index. Experimental data was used for the estimation of added yields and the costs were synthesized for different farm sizes. In this study and the study by Stauber the types of irrigation systems were not specified. Hence, 7 the variability in the investment and operating costs for different systems of irrigation were not considered. The budgeting technique was used in a study to evaluate the profitability of irrigation for dairy farms in New Hampshire [17]. Partial budgeting and break-even analysis were used by Bretthauer and Swanson [9], Alfrey and Schneeberger [31, and Aanderud and Konrad [1]. Weather variables were not considered in these studies, therefore they did not specify under what weather con­ ditions the added yields could be obtained. This study was an effort to analyze the economic profitability of investment in alternative sprinkler irrigation systems for field corn in southwest Michigan. Hand-moved giant sprinkler, self-propelled giant sprinkler, and central pivot irrigation systems were considered. The investment, ownership, and operating costs of the systems for three rates of water application per acre were estimated. Added yields due to different quantities of water application were estimated. The partial budgeting technique was used to analyze the profitability of irri­ gation versus non-irrigation of corn. The break-even techniques were used to estimate the break-even yields, corn prices, and wage rates. The analysis was carried out considering the man-influenced variables, weather variables, and soil type. The data received from inter­ views with farmers provided the basis of this analysis. 8 Despite some inadequacies of this study resulting from data and time limitations, it was hoped that the results would help farmers in their decision makings on investment and operating techniques for irrigation systems. CHAPTER II VARIABLES AFFECTING CORN YIELD The major variables affecting corn yields can be classified as: (1) man-influenced, (2) weather, and (3} soil type. A. Man-Influenced Variables These variables include irrigation water applied (quantity and timing), plant population, fertilizer in­ puts, type of seed, pesticide application, and other vari­ ables such as timeliness in planting, tillage, and har­ vesting. The field data showed that the farmers included in the study used a higher plant population and applied more fertilizer per acre on irrigated than on non-irrigated corn (Table 1 and Appendix Table A - 3 ) . However, the same type of seed, the same quantities of spray materials, and the same cultural practices such as date of planting and tillage operation were used for both irrigated and non­ irrigated corn. 9 TABLE 1. Corn Average Yields, Irrigation Water Applied, Rainfall, Plant Population, and Fertilizer Application, 1970, 1971, and Normal.3 Yield bu/acre 1971 in/acre 1971 1970 121.8 125 130 Non-irrigated 47.5 83 71 Difference 74.3 42 59 Irrigated Normal Population 1,000/acre Irr. Water Rain­ fall 1971 1970 7.16 2.6 21.4 Total = 9.76 N P2o 5 k 2o 22.7 147 67.5 124 17.5 17.6 111 55.0 106 3.9 4.9 36 12. 5 18 aDerived from Appendix Table A-3 (farmers' data). ^Total of June, July, and August. cFarmers' long-run expectation. Fertilizer, 1971 lb/acre 11 1. Water Requirements for Corn Total growing season water requirement for corn is about 20 inches per acre [13, pp. 2 and 3]. This in­ cludes the water needed during the months of April, May, June, July, and August. Time of tasselling and silking of corn for much of the Corn Belt occurs during the latter half of July and, in a late season, extends into early August. The period from tasselling to kernel formation is critical and has been shown by Holt and VanDoren T2 5J to have the highest water requirement for corn. Robins and Domingo [3 8] ob­ served that wilting for one or two days during the tassel­ ling or pollinating period could reduce corn grain yield by more than 20 per cent. Allowing the stress to continue six to eight days reduced yields by 50 per cent. A study by Claassen and Shaw [11] indicated a 53 per cent reduction in corn grain yield was associated with stress at 75 per cent silking. From early June to mid-August, Shaw and others [46] found water use to average 0.18 inches per day. Peak use rate may be considerably higher, especially during short intervals when requirements reach 0.40 inches per day. A study by Thompson [50, p. 150] on the relationship of average rainfall to corn yield for summer months in the Corn Belt showed that the maximum yields were harvested when the quantities of rainfall were about 4 inches in 12 June, 7 inches in July, and 4 inches in August. Thompson showed the relative influence of monthly rainfall to corn yield in the Corn Belt as shown in Figure 1. 30 July Y=a+7x-.5x and 18 lb. K 2 O at 5 averaged 36 pounds more of nitrogen per acre for irri­ gated corn. However, as a soil fertility specialist recommended, a larger yield could have been obtained if the farmers had used an extra 50 pounds of nitrogen per acre for irrigated corn. c. Total Annual Costs per A c r e .— Total annual costs per acre are the sum of annual ownership and operat­ ing cost per acre. These costs for the three irrigation systems and the three irrigation rates are summarized in Table 18. The total annual costs per acre ranged from $36.64 to $44.26 with 7 inches of irrigation to $46.65 to $55.48 with 13 inches of irrigation for the three systems. The hand-moved giant sprinkler systems had the lowest costs per acre for any rate of water application per acre and the central pivot had the highest costs. Self- propelled giant sprinkler systems were in between in costs. B. Profitability of Irrigating Corn The second objective of this study was to deter­ mine the profitability of irrigation versus non-irrigation of corn in southwest Michigan. The partial budgeting technique was employed to analyze the changes in expenses, receipts, and net returns resulting from irrigation of corn. The partial budgeting results for the three irri­ gation systems, three rates of water application per acre, and three corn prices are given in Table 19. Net returns 70 TABLE 18. Annual Ownership and Operating Costs per Acre for HandMoved, Self-Propelled G i a n t Sprinkler, and Central Pivot Irrigation S y s t e m s .3 Irrigation Water Applied per Acre 7 inches 10 inches 13 inches Hand-Moved Giant Sprinkler ( 1 1 0 acres irrigation) Annual Ownership Cost Annual Operating Cost $13.29 23.35 $13.29 28.35 $13.29 33. 36 Total Annual Costs $36.64 $41.64 $46.65 ( 1 1 0 acres irrigation) Annual Ownership Cost Annual Operating Cost $19.33 22.64 $19,33 27, 34 $19.33 32.05 Total Annual Costs $41.97 $46.67 $51.38 (140 acres irrigation) Annual Ownership Cost Annual Operating Cost $21.90 22.36 $21.90 27.97 $21.90 33,58 Total Annual Costs $44.26 $49.87 $55.48 Self-Propelled Gi a n t Sprinkler Central Pivot a Derived from Tables 12*17. 71 3 £ ^ ~ i/i n ui m < -1 O m 0 3- 3 r-* 4A u (J It m O P n 01 -4 'Jj r* kO ® « Pi A A <0 l/> tn Pi rt P 4 Ol i/1 O Pi in A J c ^ Qt (D H ® 1 < A & < » ! I“1 H O jjl S 3 * 4J i a * 0 4; i/l to m rt ^ *"» a) fO p * r* f* O >A ^ H « P « n O (MS Pi 41 ^ pi ? 4 ui r- ® pi h i ~ u ° i p H ^ 9 9 £ 1 01 1- 4 M O n tA i O *H o o ■ O Q < Z > pA ri ^ v> 0 H « < y > PI 41 <1 pi ^ 4 ^ « u « i » p^ /P t Q O ’6 ^ 3 •H k a C L U ) O pH IN PI {Q P ^ O 4> Pi ^ ^ ^ 3 3 fj f’ V "■ >O L/l 41 n C D ^ . i 3 •a H v 5. £ C k 1 u a -4 « ft •-t 't 3 fa “ v> O A- ^ At h Ann 0 10 ri ^ 4J lA lA n* ® 91 9 4 H P * ij> r- £ H 0 0 Q m w ^ iA W a » ^ *° H H jij - P 4 4 il S Q O O 0 0 4 r- ^ <0 H h 5 -■* 1 O O O 4 ?> « I f 4 p4 ^ H O PI 4 H < — 1 41 ‘ 1 ‘ O ri ^ ti r i 4i ■ f - 0-. »4 .1 r• 0 9 lA |A 0 0 ' m s a g^ n r- irt « \D O DC T i 4> 08 ^ A O PI f1 ■ — I 9» '— 0 §8S «* ■ o T3 n fi • 1 I il 5- -* • » 3 9 k» k* O O O 41 in ^ O O O (A (A g gS8 4> d) ^ k QA A m «i o 1 A p- * *n m Q «n a 91 t- f' ff> O « H H 4 — H O 4 m in O ia r* 0 (> ft s 9 fra* |3 ! % l H a H *-4 a g . 6 V < *n *""***1 opuatinq m 5 ■8 3 in »n c4 3 G •f I k *J u «z pi m pi t M • k a 9 -*j *> « « 0 > IJ t l p ki pH f K M * p-* • >n TJ J A A G O # 4 < 0 cjt « N 4) 0 r- P acra). *0 « «l la 4 plua i k« L » < A N par 5* n J pi 1 /1 i i IN * as •*1 ® flP u u cotta k k M V coat* | 9 {£ O ^ O J ■ ■ -* 9 (N n h ovnarttup O' ^ § -H — V > s # 4 V (annual g ~ G O H « J 12-17 o Tab la* « >y L H N f3 Pi H r1 O *9 a a rt 1-4 a 4 Dariaad 3 72 were obtained by subtracting added costs per acre from added returns. Added return was calculated as added yields times corn price times the number of acres which were irrigated. The estimated added yields, which were presented earlier in this chapter, were used in the calcu­ lation of added returns. 1. Costs and Returns for Alternative Systems The results showed positive net returns for all of the three systems, all of the three rates of water application (7, 10, and 13 inches), and three corn prices {$1.00, $1.20, and $1.40 per bushel). The annual net re­ turns per system ranged from $1,433 to $9,872 (Table 19). The low returns were associated with a 7-inch application of water and $1.00 per bushel corn. The net returns for all of the systems were largest when the highest rates of water were applied. This was due to the fact that added returns were larger than added costs per acre for addi­ tional acre-inches of water applied. Added yields and therefore added returns per acre-inch of water were de­ creasing as more water was applied per acre. However, due to lack of data it is not clear at what rate of water application per acre, the operating costs of the last acre-inch becomes equal to its returns. Annual net returns for self-propelled giant sprinkler were 15%) less than for the other two systems. (about 10- However, as 73 Table 7 showed, about 58 per cent of the corn land was irrigated by this system. One major reason could be that the self-propelled giant sprinkler systems can be oper­ ated on fields of different sizes and different shapes while the central pivot requires a square field. Compared with the hand-moved system, the self-propelled giant sprinkler system requires less labor and it is more con­ venient to operate. The central pivot system showed the lowest annual returns per acre with the hand-moved giant sprinkler system showing the highest returns. However, this fact does not hold for net returns per system. The reason is that the central pivot system covers 14 0 acres while each of the hand-moved or self-propelled giant sprinkler systems irri­ gate only 110 acres. 2. Conclusions Corn irrigation on sandy loam soils in southwest Michigan is profitable when coupled with good corn pro­ duction management and average climatic conditions. High­ est net returns resulted when the largest quantity of water was applied. With regard to the question of which one of the three irrigation systems to use, the answer varies with farmers' conditions. The central pivot system is more convenient than the other two systems, but requires a square field and a larger initial investment. The hand- moved giant sprinkler system requires more labor but 74 requires the least initial investment. The self-propelled giant sprinkler system uses less labor than hand-moved but more than the central pivot system. Its initial invest­ ment is less than for the central pivot system but more than for the hand-moved system and it can operate on fields of different sizes and shapes. Therefore, the selection of an irrigation system should be based on physical and economic resources on individual farms. C. Break-Even Analysis The third objective of this study was to deter­ mine the break-even yields, corn prices, and wage rates for alternative irrigation systems. 1. Break-Even Yields Break-even yield is defined as the added yield which will equate the annual costs and returns of the system. Break-even yields for the three irrigation systems, for three rates of water application (7, 10, and 13 inches) per acre, and at three corn prices ($1.00, $1.20, and $1.40 per bushel) per bushel were developed. The results are given in Table 20. The break-even yields ranged from 26.2 to 55.5 additional bushels per acre depending on the quantity of water applied and on the price for corn. The hand-moved giant sprinkler system required the smallest added yield to offset costs and the central pivot the largest added yields for the three 75 TABLE 20. Break-Even Yields for the Three Irrigation Systems for Three Corn Prices— Additional Bushels of Corn Required to Offset the Costs. Added System Hand-moved giant sprinkler (110 acres irrigation) Self-propelled giant sprinkler (110 acres irrigation) Central pivot (140 acres irrigation) irr. Rate (in/acre) 7 10 13 7 10 13 7 10 13 Acre* (dol.) Break-Even Yield with Corn Price of: 51.0/bu (bu) 51-20/bu (bu) 51.40/bu (bu) 536.64 541.64 546.65 36.6 41.6 46.7 30 .5 34.7 38.9 26.2 29.8 33.3 541.97 546.67 551.38 42.0 46.7 51.4 35.0 38.9 42.8 30.0 33.3 36.7 544.26 549.87 555.48 44.3 49.9 55.5 36.8 41.6 46.2 31.6 35.6 39.6 aDerived from Table 18. 76 irrigation rates and corn prices. The farmers reported added yields resulting from corn irrigation were larger than yields needed to just break even. They averaged about 50 and 72 bushels of added yields for 7 and 10 inches of irrigation rates in 1971, in spite of low rain­ fall in that year (Tables 1 and 10). The break-even re ­ sults showed that the maximum added yields for correspond ing irrigation rates were about 44 and 50 bushels per acre. 2. Break-Even Corn Prices The break-even corn price is defined as the price per bushel which will equate annual costs and returns of a system. Break-even corn prices for the three irri­ gation systems were developed for three rates of water application and for two yield levels (Table 21). High- level yields used were those presented at the beginning of this chapter. 20 bushels Low yields were derived by subtracting (arbitrarily) from estimated irrigated yields. The purpose was to determine the impact of low yields (resulting from poor corn production management) on break­ even prices. The break-even corn prices ranged from $0.52 to $0.80 per bushel for high yields and $0.67 to $1.26 per bushel for low yields. The hand-moved giant sprinkler system required the lowest break-even corn prices and the central pivot system the highest corn prices at all rates of water application. The reason TABLE 21. Break-■Even Corn Prices for the Three Irrigation Systems. Irr. Rate (in/acre) System Added Costs/ Acre® (dol.) Added Yields Bushels/Acre T Low 13 HighC Break-Even Price for: b Low Yields (dol.) High Yields0 (dol.) Hand-moved giant sprinkler (llo acres irrigation) 7 10 13 $36.64 $41.64 $46.65 35 55 70 55 75 90 $1.05 0.76 0.67 $0.67 0.55 0.52 Self-propelled giant sprinkler (110 acres irrigation) 7 10 13 $41.97 $46.67 $51.38 35 55 70 55 75 90 1.20 0.85 0.73 0.76 0.62 0.57 Central pivot (140 acres irrigation) 7 10 13 $44.26 $49.87 $55.48 35 55 70 55 75 90 1.26 0.91 0.79 0.80 0.66 0.62 dDerived from Table 18. b Low yields were by subtracting 20 bushels (arbitrarily) from estimated added yields. c High yields were the same as estimated added yields presented at the beginning of Chapter IV. They were the differences between irrigated and non-irrigated corn yields. 78 was because hand-moved had the lowest cost per acre where­ as central pivot had the highest. Within a system, the break-even price decreased as the rate of water appli­ cation increased. The reason was that the required added yields to offset the costs were less than realized added yields per acre when additional acre-inches of water were applied. 3. Break-Even Wage Rates The break-even wage rates were estimated only for systems of hand-moved and self-propelled giant sprinklers. That is the wage rates which will equate the costs of the two systems. These two systems are technically more substitutable for each other than for the central pivot system. A prior assumption to this objective was that farmers would be willing to shift from hand-moved giant sprinkler to more costly self-propelled giant sprinklers. Actual data showed that this shift has occurred in past years, and it was observed that new irrigators have pur­ chased and are planning to purchase self-propelled giant sprinkler systems rather than hand-moved systems. The break-even wage rates (for hand-moved and self-propelled giant sprinklers) for three levels of irrigation water application were estimated:1 1The break-even wage rates were calculated as follows: 79 Irrigation Water Applied per Acre 7 inch 10 inch 13 inch Break-Even Wage Rate $6.57 $5.18 $4.44 Labor rates used in development of cost estimates were based on $2.50 per hour. However, the break-even results showed that the labor costs could have been under­ estimated by using wage rates as $2.50 per hour. As it was indicated hand-moved giant sprinkler systems required 3.25 hours of labor for every 6 hours of actual irrigation time while self-propelled giant sprinklers required only 1 hour labor for every 10 hours of actual irrigation time. It was assumed that hand-moved systems would operate up where = Break-even wage rate. C. = Total annual cost of self-propelled giant sprinkler excluding labor cost. C 2 = Total annual cost of hand-moved giant sprinklers excluding labor cost. L. = Annual labor hours for self-propelled giant sprinkler. L~ = Annual labor hours for hand-moved giant sprinkler. i = 1, 2, and 3 representing 7 inches, 10 inches, and 13 inches of water application per acre respectively. Data derived from Tables 12, 13, 15, and 16 80 to 18*5 hours per day. This included 12 hours of actual irrigation and 6.5 hours of labor to move the sprinklers and lateral pipes. Since the labor in moving the system is both time consuming and disagreeable , farmers are likely to place a higher value on labor for this system. The 3.25 hours of labor for each 6 hours of actual irri­ gation includes .75 hours of labor to move the sprinklers and 2.5 hours to move the laterals which has to be done at two different times. The 2.5 hours is the sum of hours of three people working together to move the laterals (two people to carry the pipes and one person to drive the tractor which is pulling the wagon). Having three people work together and work on scattered hours makes the labor hour to be more costly for the irrigators who operate with hand-moved systems. The shift of farmers from irrigating with handmoved to more costly self-propelled giant sprinkler systems could be due to the possible irrigation in­ efficiency of hand-moved systems. The costs of the irri­ gation were calculated given the assumption that handmoved systems would apply 2 acre-inches of water per irrigation and self-propelled systems only 1.2 acreinches. These water applications were chosen on the basis of farmers’ reports on their irrigation practice. It was further assumed (due to lack of data) that added yields as a result of water application would be the 81 same whether water application per irrigation was 2 acreinches or 1.2. The labor cost and therefore total cost per acre for hand-moved will increase if the rate of water appli­ cation is decreased to 1.2 acre-inches per irrigation. In that case the annual cost per acre for hand-moved will increase by about $3.20, $4.50, and $4.80 for 7, 10, and 13 acre-inches of water application respectively. How­ ever, in spite of these cost increases, the annual costs per acre for hand-moved giant sprinklers are less than for self-propelled giant sprinklers. These cost increases would, to some extent, show the cost increases when lower rates of water are applied per irrigation. However, the figures are not realistic since some other ownership and operating costs might change as a result of decreases in rate of water application per irrigation. D. Alternative Investment Opportunities The fourth objective of this study was to analyze the economic profitability of investing in highly pro­ ductive cropland without irrigation as an alternative investment opportunity to investment in more droughty, less costly land and an investment in an irrigation system. 82 1. Investment Opportunities Explored The partial budgeting approach was employed to compare the profitability of the two investment alter­ natives. The results are given in Table 22. native required $51,700. Each alter­ For Alternative A, the invest­ ment includes $35,700 in low productive, sandy loam land (for 119 acres including nine acres loss of land due to irrigation at $300 per acre) and $16,000 in a self- propelled giant sprinkler irrigation system. With this investment a farmer would actually irrigate 110 acres of corn. For Alternative B, a farmer would invest $51,700 in 86 acres highly productive, silty clay loam to loam land at $600 per acre but would not invest in an irri­ gation system. The net returns per acre, per system, and differ­ ences in alternative net returns were calculated 22). (Table The net returns were calculated for two corn prices: namely, $1.00 and $1.2 0 per bushel. The estimated yields derived from farmers' data were used for the irrigated corn. The non-irrigated corn for highly productive land, was derived from a recent research report [24, p. 5].^ Ownership costs for the irrigation system were derived from Table 13 and operating costs from Table 16. Oper­ ating costs were the sum of labor, electricity, and ^The non-irrigated corn yields for highly pro­ ductive land and good management were used. 83 T M L E 22. Corn— Annul Cost* *nd Ktturm for Two Alternative Investments of (51,700.* Alternative A: Investment in Low Productive Land (Sandy Loam) and Investment in Self-propelled Giant Sprinkler Syatam Alternative 8: Investment in High Productive Land (Silty Clay Loam to a Loam) and No Irrigation item Unit Alternative A, 110 Acres of Irrigated, Low Productive Land Alternativa >i 66 Acres of Non-irrigated, Highly Productive Land Price or Cost/ Unit Quantity Value or Cost Quantity Value or Coat *1.20 *1.00 145 145 *174.00 *145.00 115 115 *138.00 *115.00 * 6.80 * 19.35 6.00 22 — 3 * 8.80 * 19.35 6.00 Costa and As turna par Acre: 1. 2. Return Yield per acre Production Costs: Variable coats: Seed Fertiliser Herbicide (Atresine) Power and machinery (growing 4 harvesting) Hauling Labor Total variable costa Ownership Coats: Landc Machinery Total ownership costs bu. bu. 1000 lb. lb. -40 22 3.00 2 acre bu. hr . .06 2. 50 1 145 3 e.oo 8.70 7.50 * 56. 35 1 115 3 8.00 6.90 7. 50 * 56.55 1 1 51 .00 8.00 59.00 acre acre dol. — — 1 1 25.50 8.00 33.50 Irrigation Coats: Operating11 Equipment ownership Loss of l*ndf Total irrigation cost acre sere acre ---- 1 1 15.68 19.32 2. 04 37. 05 4. Total All Costs acre 126.90 115.55 5. Net Returns <1-4 at 1.20/bu) Net Returns (1-4 at 1.00/bu) acre acre 45.10 16.10 22.45 -.55 3. .08 — — — — — — Costa end Returns per Alternative: 6. Returns (at 41.20/bushel) dol. 110 19,140.00 86 11,868.00 7, costs del. 110 14,179.00 86 9,937.00 S. Net Returns (at 11.20/bushel) Difference in net return* dol. dol. 110 4,961.00 86 1,931.00 Net Returns (at *1.00/bushel) Difference in net returns dol. dol. 110 86 -47.00 9* 3,030.00 1,771.00 1.•18.00 Alternative Ai (51,700 investment (*15,700 in 119 acres of low productive land including 9 acres loaa of land due to irrigation at 1300/acre and 111,000 investment in self-propelled giant sprinkler irrigation syatam). The costs and returns are for 10inches of water application par acre. Alternative 8: *51,700 investment In about 86 acres of high productive land at (600/acr* and no lrrlgatlonj for land prices see [14, p. 7) . b 15Q lb, N, 70 lb. PjO j , and 115 lb. kjO at 5C (NHj), 6t, and St/lb. respectively. C® .5e of the land value (low prod, at (300/acre, high prod, at 5600/acre)based on 74 charge for interest and 1.5a to coverteas* and other direct lend coats such as districtdrainageassess­ ments j see [24, p. 7). d Include* labor, electricity, and maintenance and repairs for 10 inches of water application per acre> derived from Table 16. *Der ived from Table 13. f8.54 of land value (*300/acre> for 6» of an acrej see [24, p. 7[. 84 maintenance and repair costs for 10 inches of water application per acre. 2. Results Based on the price and yield data assumed, it was more profitable to invest in less productive land and in a self-propelled giant sprinkler system (Alternative A) than investing in highly productive land and no irri­ gation (Alternative B ) . At a corn price at $1.20 per bushel the annual net return for Alternative A was $4,961 and for Alternative B $1,931. returns was $3,030. The difference between net At a corn price of $1.00 per bushel the annual net return for Alternative A was $1,771 and for Alternative B a loss of $47, that is, the difference of $1,818. The results showed that at the corn price of $1.00 per bushel and land valued at $600 per acre a farmer just recovered costs for the highly productive land and no irrigation. With excellent management and higher yields, net returns would be greatly improved. Irrigation technology has increased the production efficiency (output increasing) and therefore it has in­ creased the net returns for farmers. It is possible that the increase in net returns will be capitalized in the value of the low productive lands used for corn (given the assumption that the prices paid for irrigation system and its related inputs will not change for the farmers). The break-even prices for low productive land was 85 values which would equate the net returns of Alternative A and Alternative B. The break-even values were $480 when corn was priced at $1.00 per bushel and $600 when corn was priced at $1.20 per bushel. Another way to look at the effect of irrigation technology, is that the high productive land ($600 per acre) is over valued. That is, irrigation technology might cause a reduction in the price of highly productive land used for corn. The break-even prices for highly productive land were calculated, that is, the high pro­ ductive land prices which would equate the net returns of Alternative A and Alternative B (given no change in the price of low-quality land). These break-even values were $351 and $185 when corn was priced at $1.00 and $1.20 per bushel respectively. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A. Summary Water is one of the limiting factors in producing high yields of corn. Water shortages during the growing season, especially in the critical periods, often result in substantial yield reductions. The quantity of summer rainfall in the major corn-growing regions of Michigan varies considerably from year to year. In most of the years, the July rainfall was less than the optimum water requirement for corn. Rainfall variation and its distri­ bution results in uncertainty for corn yields. This is especially true for farms with coarse textured soils. For farmers who do not irrigate, optimum corn cultural prac­ tices cannot be applied because of uncertainty of rainfall. Supplemental irrigation can supply the water needs not met by rainfall. However, the question of whether it is economically feasible to invest in an irri­ gation system is of prime importance for many farmers. The primary objective of this study was to analyze the economic profitability of investment in alternative 86 87 sprinkler irrigation systems for field corn in southwest Michigan. Hand-moved giant sprinkler, self-propelled giant sprinkler, were considered. 1. and central pivot irrigation systems The specific objectives were: To determine the investment, ownership and operating costs, and increased output for alternative irrigation systems. 2. To determine the profitability of irrigation versus non-irrigation of corn. 3. To determine the break-even yields, corn prices, and wage rates for alternative systems. 4. To study the economic profitability of investing in highly productive cropland without irrigation versus investing in more droughty, less costly land and an irrigation system. Partial budgeting and break-even techniques were employed to analyze the economic profitability of invest­ ments in alternative sprinkler irrigation systems. The analysis was based on the data received from personal interviews with fourteen farmers in Cass and St. Joseph counties who were irrigating corn. The farmers' data were compared and contrasted with information received from personal interviews with several dealers of irrigation equipment, corn irrigation experimental results, and reports on irrigation systems. 88 The study considered three sprinkler irrigation systems: (1) hand-moved giant sprinkler, (2) self- propelled giant sprinklers, and (3) central pivot. The estimated corn yield response to application of three quantities of irrigation water were based on corn pro­ duction on sandy loam soils and the application of better than average production, harvesting, and irrigation technology. B. Conclusions The general conclusion of this study was that investments in corn irrigation for sandy loam soils in southwest Michigan is profitable given better than average corn production management technology and average cli­ matic conditions. Irrigation not only increases the net returns for the farmers who irrigate corn but it also makes the yield and therefore the returns more certain. Reducing the yield uncertainty by irrigation is important to farmers, especially for the new farmers who cannot bear the risk of sharp yield reduction in their farming. The profitability of irrigation of corn varied with the quantities of water applied and between the three irri­ gation systems studied. 89 1. Investments, Costs, and Increased Output for Three Irrigation Systems The first objective of this study was to deter­ mine the investment, ownership and operating costs, and increased output for alternative irrigation systems. The farmers' non-irrigated corn yielded an average of about 70 bushels per acre. The estimated irrigated corn yields were 125, 145, and 160 bushels per acre for 7, 10, and 13 inches of water application per acre. Therefore, the irrigation response for the three rates of water appli­ cation were 55, 75, and 90 bushels per acre, respectively. The calculated investments for the three irri­ gation systems were $11,880, $15,999, and $25,300 for hand-moved giant sprinkler, self-propelled giant sprinkler, and central pivot, respectively. The ownership and oper­ ating costs per acre for the three systems were based on three rates of water application namely 7, 10, and 13 inches. These costs were for the irrigation of 110 acres for the hand-moved and self-propelled giant sprinkler systems, and 140 acres for the central pivot system. The annual ownership costs per acre were $13.29, $19.33, and $21.90 for the hand-moved giant sprinkler, self-propelled giant sprinkler, and central pivot systems, respectively. The annual operating costs per acre were almost the same for the three irrigation systems at any of the three rates of water application per acre. These ranged from $22.36 to $23.35 when 7 inches of water was 90 applied to $32.05 to $33.58 when 13 inches of water were applied. Labor contributed 17 per cent to total costs for the hand-moved system compared to slightly more than 2 per cent for the central pivot system (at 10 inches of water application). Higher operating costs for electri­ city, maintenance, and repairs offset the lower labor costs for the central pivot system. The total annual costs per acre (ownership and operating costs) ranged from $36.64 for the hand-moved system to $44.26 for the central-pivot system when 7 inches of water were applied, to $46.65 for the handmoved system and $55.48 for the central pivot system when 13 inches of water were applied. Total annual costs per acre for the self-propelled giant sprinkler system were midway between costs for the other two systems at all rates of water application. Although total annual costs were lowest for the high-labor, low investment hand-moved system, irrigators tend to adopt the more mechanized systems. of pipes is a disagreeable task. Hand moving Also, the high labor requirements discourage use of this system due to diffi­ culties in obtaining seasonal labor and in fully utilizing this labor between irrigation moves. Labor for the two more highly mechanized systems was usually supplied by the operator, his family, and regular hired labor. 91 2. Profitability of Irrigating Corn The second objective was to determine the profita­ bility of irrigation versus non-irrigation of corn in southwest Michigan. The partial budgeting technique was employed to analyze the changes in expenses, receipts, and net returns resulting from irrigation of corn. returns per acre and per system were calculated. Net Partial budgeting results showed positive net returns for the three systems of irrigation, for the three rates of water application, and for the three corn prices considered. Annual net returns per system above the costs of owning and operating the irrigation system with corn priced at $1.00 per bushel ranged from less than $2,000 when only 7 inches of water were applied to about $5,000 when 13 inches of water were applied. At corn price of $1.40 per bushel the net returns per system ranged from $3,853 when 7 inches of water were applied to $9,872 when 13 inches of water were applied. At corn prices of $1.00 and $1.20 per bushel the hand-moved system resulted in the highest net returns when 7 inches of water were applied. However, at all corn prices and 13 inches of irrigation water, the self-propelled central pivot system showed the highest net returns. Higher annual net returns were attained when larger rates of irrigation water were applied. all of the three systems. This was true for The annual net returns per system 92 were the lowest at all corn prices and all levels of water application for the self-propelled giant sprinkler system. In spite of lower returns for the self-propelled giant sprinkler, about 58 per cent of the corn land was irri­ gated by this system. One major reason could be that the self-propelled giant sprinkler can be operated on fields of different sizes and different shapes while the central pivot requires a square field. Compared with the hand- moved system, the self-propelled giant sprinkler system requires less labor and it is more convenient to operate. Net returns per acre for all rates of water application and all corn prices were the highest for the handmoved system and the lowest for the central pivot system. However, this fact does not hold when net returns per system are compared. The irrigation systems vary in relation to initial investment, labor requirement, operating flexibility on fields of different shapes and sizes, and returns ob­ tained. Therefore, the selection of an irrigation system should be based on physical and economic resources on individual farms. It is pointed out that the three irri­ gation systems are not entirely comparable due to differences in acres covered. The central pivot system is engineered for 140 acres while the other two systems are adapted to 110 acres (considered in this study). 93 3. Break-Even Points The third objective was to determine the break­ even yields, corn prices, and wage rates. The annual costs per acre and estimated yield responses were used to determine the break-even points. a. Break-even Y i e ld s .— Break-even yields for three irrigation systems were developed for the three water application rates and for three corn prices. The estimated break-even yields ranged from 26.2 to 55.5 additional bushels per acre depending on the quantity of water applied and on the price for corn. The estimated added yields from corn irrigation were larger than yields needed just to break even. They averaged 50 and 72 bushels of added yields for 7 and 10 inches of irrigation rates in 1971, in spite of low rainfall in that year. The break-even results showed that the maximum added yields for corresponding irrigation rates were about 44 and 50 bushels per acre. b. Break-even Corn Prices.— Break-even corn prices for three irrigation systems were developed for three rates of water application and for two yield levels. High yields were assumed to be produced and harvested under good corn production management practices. High yields are the same as estimated yield responses and low yield were derived by subtracting 20 bushels from estimated yield responses. Break-even corn prices for high yields 94 ranged from $0.52 to $0.80 per bushel. This implies that corn irrigation is profitable unless corn price falls below $0.80 per bushel. Using low yield responses, break­ even corn prices ranged from $0.67 to $1.26 per bushel. Break-even corn prices were less than $1.00 when 10 or more acre-inches of water were applied. However, the break-even corn prices for 7 acre-inches of water appli­ cation were more than $1.00 per bushel. One may conclude that under the conditions of low yield response and a corn price of $1.00 per bushel a corn irrigator will not have a positive net return unless he applies 10 inches or more water per acre. Within an irrigation system, the break-even corn prices were lower when higher rates of water were applied per acre. The reason was that the required added yields to offset the costs were less than the realized added yields per acre when additional acre-inches of water were applied. c. Break-even Wage Rates.— The break-even wage rates were estimated for systems of hand-moved and selfpropelled giant sprinklers. That is, the wage rates which would equate the costs of the two systems. These two systems are technically more substitutable for each other than central pivot systems. The estimated break-even wage rates were $6.57, $5.18, and $4.44 for 7, 10, and 13 inches of water 95 application per acre. In this analysis the estimated labor costs were based on $2.50 per hour. It appears that by using $2.50 per hour, labor costs have been underesti­ mated. Hand-moved systems require more labor per acre- inch of water application than self-propelled giant sprinkler systems. This system requires labor every three hours and requires two or more persons working together in moving sprinklers and the pipes. inconveniences, Due to these the labor could be more costly for the irrigators who operate with hand-moved systems. 4. Alternative Investment Opportunities The fourth objective of this study was to analyze the economic profitability of investing in highly productive cropland without irrigation as an alternative investment opportunity to investment in more droughty, less costly land and an investment in an irrigation system. Two investment alternatives were considered. of the alternatives required $51,700 investment. Each For Alternative A, a farmer would invest $51,700 which in­ cludes investment in low productive, ($3 5,700) sandy loam land and an investment in self-propelled giant sprinkler irrigation system ($16,000). For Alternative B, a farmer would invest $51,700 in highly productive, silty clay loam to loam land and will not invest in irrigation system. The results showed that it was more profitable to invest in less productive land and in a self-propelled 96 giant sprinkler system (Alternative A) than investing in highly productive land and no irrigation at the land prices used. C. Limitations of the Study and Further Research Needs The major purpose of this study was to analyze the economic profitability of investment in alternative sprinkler irrigation systems for field corn in southwest Michigan. In the implementation of the results, one should consider that the estimated added yields, as a result of irrigation water, were: soils such as sandy loam, (1) for coarse textured (2) for climatic conditions of southwest Michigan, and (3) under the conditions of a good corn production management practice; that is, a better than average application of production practices. The farmers' data showed that in 1971 about 7 5 per cent of irrigated land was grown to corn, about 17 per cent to soybeans, and 7 per cent to alfalfa. An im­ portant question to farmers is how to allocate the irri­ gation water among different crops in order to maximize net returns. Hand-moved and self-propelled giant sprink­ ler systems can be moved to different fields and irrigate different crops more intensively when most water is needed. Further research is needed to study the optimum irrigation water allocation among corn and other competing crops such as soybeans and alfalfa. The needed data includes 97 weekly yield response to irrigation water for the com­ peting crops. Shortage of water for corn especially in the critical period of its growing season results in yield reduction. The effects of water shortage for corn is more serious when corn is grown on coarse textured soils, given a special quantity of rainfall. Finer textured soils have higher water-holding capacities and therefore are more productive for corn production. The supple­ mental irrigation water need varies with the soil type and therefore the irrigated acres which an irrigation system can cover varies. Further research is needed to analyze and to compare the irrigation response and its profitability under the conditions of different soil productivity and different climatic conditions. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Aa nd e r u d , W. G . , and Konrad, D. E. Irrigation Costs and Returns. South Dakota State University, USDA Cooperative Extension Service, EC 655. 2. Abel, Fred H. "A Procedure for Measuring the Separate Effects of Man-Controlled Inputs and Weather on Yields--Applied to Grain Sorghum Yields." Un­ published Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. 3. Alfrey, G. K . , and Schneeberger, K. C. Making Irri­ gation Investment P a y . University of Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 865, April, 1969. 4. American Association for Vocational Instructional Materials. Planning for an Irrigation S y st em , n.p.: American Association "fo~r Vocational Instructional Materials, June, 1971. 5. Behrens, Richard, and Lee, O. C. "Weed Control." Advances in Corn Production: Principles and Practices. Edited by W. Hk P i e rr e, S^ Al A T d r i c h , and W. p T Martin. Iowa: The Iowa State Uni­ versity Press, 1966. 6. Berge, O. I., and Groskopp, M. D. Irrigation Equip­ ment in Wisconsin. College of Agriculture, U m versity of Wisconsin Extension Service, Special Circular 90, April, 1964. 7. Berry, L. Russell. "Break-Even Analysis: A Practical Tool in Farm Management." American Journal of Agricultural Economics, LIV"J N o . T (February, 197 2), 121-i5. 8. _________. "Break-Even Charts: A Tool for Better Farm Management." Journal of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, Inc.") XXXVI, No. 1 {April, 19?2)7T 5- ^1 . 98 99 9. Bretthauer, G. L . , and Swanson, E. R. "Supplemental Irrigation of Corn: A Break-Even Analysis." Illinois Agricultural Economics, IX, No. 2 (July, --------------IffWJ, 15-24. 10. Castle and Becker. Farm Business Management. York: Macmillan, 1967. 11. Claassen, M. M . , and Shaw, R. H. "Water Deficit Effects on Corn. II. Grain Components." Agronomy J o u r n a l , LXII, No. 5 (1970), 652-55. 12. Corn Trials— 1956-1961. College of Agriculture, University of Wisconsin, Hancock Branch Experi­ ment Station, March 21, 196 2. Mimeographed. 13. Department of Crop and Soil Science. Field D a y . East Lansing: Michigan State University, September 1, 1971. 14. Drablos, Carroll J. W . , and Jones, B. A., Jr. Sprinkler Irrigation Trends in the Corn Belt States. Paper No. 70-733. S t. Joseph, M i c h . : American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 1970. 15. Duncan, E. R. "Problems Relating to Selection of Hybrid Seed: Calendarization a Consideration." Advances in Corn Production: Principles and Practices. Edited by W. EH P i e r re , S . AT A l d r i c h , and W. P. Martin. Iowa: The Iowa State University Press, 1966. 16. Economics of Supplemental Irrigation in Central Minnesota. University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 475, 1965. 17. Evaluating the Profitability of Irrigation of North­ eastern Dairy F a r m s . University of New Hampshire, Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 469, November, 1960. 18. Froilk, E. F. Mechanically Moved Sprinkler Systems. University of Nebraska, College of Agriculture and Home Economics Extension Service, Bulletin EC65-753, January, 1966. 19. Givens, R. Horace. "An Application of Curvilinear Break-Even Analysis." The Accounting Review (January, 1966), 141-43. New 100 20. Goggans, P. Travis. "Break-Even Analysis with Curvilinear Functions." The Accounting Review (October, 1965), 867-71. 21 . Hanway, D. G. "Irrigation." Advances in Corn Production: Principles and Practices. Edited by W. if"! Pierre, S. A. Aldrich, and W. P. Martin. Iowa: The Iowa State University Press, 1966. 22. Haynes, W. w. Managerial Economics. Texas: Business Publications, I n c . , 1970. 23. Hoglund, C. R. "Factors Affecting Profitability of Irrigating Corn." Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University. [Summary of Farmers' Week Talk, February 1, 1967]. Mimeographed. 24. ________ , Schwab, G. D . , and M. B. Tesar. Economics of Growing and Feeding Alfalfa and Corn S~llage for Dairy Ca tt l e . Michigan State University, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Report 154, March, 1972. 25. Holt, R. F . , and VanDoren, C. A. "Water Utilization by Field Corn in Western Minnesota." Agronomy Journal, LIII (1961), 43-45. 26. 1971 Irrigation Catalog. Corporation. 27. Johnson, D. Gale, and Gustafson, Robert L. Grain Yields and the American Food Supply. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962. 28. Kelvie, William E . , and Sinclair, M. John. "New Technique for Breakeven Charts." Financial Executive (June, 1968), 31-43. 29. Lacewell, Ronald D. "Estimating Distribution Costs of Irrigation Water Drawn from an Exhaustible Aquifer." Journal of American Society of Farm Managers and Rural A p p r aiser s , XXXV, No. 2 (October, 1^71), 51-55. 30. ________ , and Hughes, W. r . A Comparison of Capital Requirements and Labor Use, Alternative Sprinkler Irrigation Systems, Texas High P l a i n s . Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Econo­ mics and Rural Sociology, Departmental Information, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Report No. 71-3, March, 1971. RainBird Sprinkler Mfg. 101 31. Lucas, Robert E. Cultural Trials on Irrigated C o r n . Michigan State University, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Ser­ vice, Research Report No. 84, May, 1969. 32. Mannering, J. V. "Soils and Irrigation." Purdue Top Farmer Workshop Corn Production Proceedings. Purdue University, Cooperative Extension Service in cooperation with Purdue Agricultural Experi­ ment Station and School of Agriculture, August, 1968. 33. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Irrigation in Michigan 1970. Water Development Service Division, Water Resources Commission, WDS-7, November, 1970. 34. Michigan Weather Service. In cooperation with the Weather Bureau, USDC. Climate of Michigan by Stations, Average Annual Snowfall 'in Inches for Period of 1931-l96d~Z Michigan WeatHer Service, 19 66. 35. Potash Institute of North America. Fertilegrams. Atlanta, Georgia: Potash Institute of: North America, June, 1972. 36. Pulver, Glen, and Staniforth, Sydney. Figuring Irrigation Costs. University of Wisconsin, Extension Service, Circular No. 519, June, 1956. 37. Reutlinger, Shloma, and Seagraves, James A. "A Method of Appraising Irrigation Returns." Journal of Farm Economics, XLIV (August, 1962), g r r-Bff.-------------------- 38. Robins, J. S., and Domingo, C. E. "Some Effects of Severe Soil Moisture Deficits at Specific Growth Stages of Corn." Agronomy J o u r n a l , XLV (1953), 618-28. 39. Rossman, E. C. "Corn Hybrids and Irrigation Experi­ ments at Montcalm Experiment Farm— 1970." 1970 Research Report, Montcalm Experimental F a r m . Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, pp. 68-74. 40. _______. "Corn Hybrids, Plant Population and Irrigation." 1969 Montcalm Experimental Farm Research Report"! Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, pp. 40-57. 102 41. Rossman, E. C. "Corn Hybrids, Plant Population and Irrigation." 1971 Research Report, Montcalm Experimental Fa r m . Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, pp. 60-67. 42. _________, and Cook, R. L. "Seed Preparation and Date, Rate, and Pattern of Planting." Advances in Corn Production: Principles and Practices^ Edited by W. h T Pierre, S . A.^Aldrich, and wT P . Martin. Iowa: The Iowa State University Press, 1966. 43. ________ , and Darling, Bary M. Michigan Corn Production Hybrids Compared 197 2 . Michigan State University, Cooperative Extension, Bulletin 431. 44. Shaw, Lawrence H. The Effect of Weather and Tech­ nology on Corn Yields in the Corn Belt, 1929-^62. USDA Agriculture Economic Report No. 80, 1964. 45. Shaw, R. H . , and Burrows, W. C. "Water Supply, Water Use, and Water Requirement." Advances in Corn Production: Principles and Practices. Edited by^W. H. Pierre, S. A. Aldrich, ancf W. P. Martin. Iowa: The Iowa State University Press, 1966. 46. Shaw, R. H . ; Runkles, J. R . ; and Garger, G. L. Seasonal Changes in Soil Moisture as Related to Rainfall, Soil Type, and Croip Growth. Iowa Agricultural and Home Economics Experiment Station, Research Bulletin 457, 1958. 47. Stauber, M. S., Jr. "An Economic Analysis of Supplemental Irrigation in Subhumid Areas." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri, 1968. 48. Strommen, N. D. Monthly Precipitation Probabilities for Climatic Divisions in Michigan. ESSA-Weather Bureau, publi sheet in cooperation w ith Michigan Department of Agriculture, Michigan Weather Service, April, 1967. 49. _________; Van Den Brink, C.; and Kidder, E. H. Meterological Drought in Michigan. Michigan State University, Agricuitural Experiment Station, Research Report 78, February, 1969. 50. Thompson, L. M. "Regional Weather Relations." Advances in Corn Production: Principles and Practices. Edited by W. IK Pierre, S. A. X T dr ic h, and W. P. Martin. Iowa: The Iowa State Uni­ versity Press, 1966. 103 51. Thompson, L. M. "Weather and Technology in the Production of Corn." Purdue Top Farmer Workshop Corn Production Proceedings. Purdue University, Cooperative Extension Service in cooperation with Purdue Agricultural Experiment Station and School of Agriculture, August, 1968. 52. Thorfinnson, T. S.; Swanson, Norris P.; and Epp, A. W. Cost of Distributing Irrigation Water by Sprinkler Method. Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station in cooperation with USDA, Bulletin 4 55, March, 1960. 53. Tractor Power for Power-Take-Off Driven Pumps. Michigan State University, Cooperative Extension Service, Extension Bulletin E-711, July, 1971. 54. United States Department of Agriculture. Michigan Agricultural Statistics, July, 1 9 7 1 . MTcKIgarfDepartment of Agriculture. 55. Vincent, Warren H . , and Connor, Larry J. An Orien­ tation for Future Farm Planning and InformatXon Systems. Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Economics Miscellaneous, 1968-5, April 19, 1968. 56. Weston, J. Fred, and Brigham, Eugene F. Managerial Finance. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, t t s t ;— 57. Wright, K. T., and Caul, D. A. Michigan's Agriculture. Michigan State University, Farm Science Series, Cooperative Extension Service, Bulletin 582, August, 1967. APPENDIX FARMERS 1 DATA AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS APPENDIX FARMERS' DATA AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS This appendix includes farmers' data on crop acreages, irrigated and non-irrigated corn yields, gation water applied, rainfall, plant population, zer application, type of seeds, irri­ fertili­ and dates of planting and harvesting. It includes also the farmers* data on basic units of hand-moved and self-propelled giant sprinkler systems. Table A-4 includes Montcalm County experimental results on irrigated and non-irrigated corn yields, irrigation water applied and rainfall. For simplicity the farms will be referred to by numbers (Farms 1-11 and 14 are in St. Joseph County and Farms 12 and 13 are in Cass C o u n ty ) . 104 TABLE A-l. Irrigated and Non-Irrigated Crop Acres and Size of the Farm, 1971. Irrigated Acres Farm Number Corn 1 2 Soybeans Alfalfa Non-Irrigated Acres Othersa — — 25 60 — 6 270 90 — 87 90 — — — 7 100 120 — — — 28 — — — — 8 240 30 25 25 18 18 — — — — 16 26 153 3 4 5 120 220 9 10 11 12 270 240C 13 14 72 130 72 — 2,033 145.2 449 32.1 86 Total Ave./Farm — — 60 22 — — 185 13.2 Total Corn 16 113 296 180 270 150 64 — 123 — 40 — 40 306 245 295 240 108 144 130 220 — — — — — 46 3.3 2,713 193.8 a Include sorghum, sudax, and wheat. b Include pasture, wheat, and diverted land. Q Include 100 acres of popcorn. d include 300 acres of popcorn. 100 95 300. 600 170 118 150 1,800 128.6 Soybeans 80 — 140 — 30 20 80 — — — — 250 8 Alfalfa 60 — — 60 — — — 200 — — — 88 -- 60 30 608 43.4 498 35.6 Others *5 Total Total 120 530 95 300 640 548 301 300 299 163 609 330 370 224 430 836 340 595 880 656 445 430 988 70.6 3,894 278.1 6,607 471.9 79 50 50 90 30 54 90 230 — — 40 40 115 283 50 313 150 CroP^an^ 100 74 210 106 TABLE A-2. Crop Acres Irrigated by System, 1971, Farm Number Corn Soybeans Alfalfa Total No. of Systems 18 — — ie 4.5 16 6 240 10 6 514 128.5 1 2 1 4 1 — 16 113 296 180 270 150 220 140 125 70 1,580 131.7 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 Other® Hand-moved giant sprinkler a n 12 100 240* 86 426 106,5 30 — — 30 7.5 18 — 32 40 10 16 26 153 120 270 90 100 140 100 70 1,00 5 90. 5 __ 07 90 — -— 120 — 25 — 322 26.8 — — 25 60 -60 -— — — 14 5 12.1 120 72 192 _ _ _ — -— — — — 120 144 264 132 1 1 96 72 72 36 130 — — — 130 1 1B0 25 — — 205 1 10 20 — — — 20 1 Total 2,033 449 105 46 2,713 Ave . /Farm 145. 2 32.1 13.2 3.3 193.8 Total Ave./System Self-propelled giant sprinkler 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 Total Ave./System — 26 -— __ — ----— 28 2.3 Self-propelled central pivot 9 13 Total A v e . /system 2 1 Boom sprinkler 14 Whee1-mounted giant sprinkler 10 Multi-sprinkier solid set * includes 100 ecree of popcorn, b Irrigated leee than 140 acres because of the shape of the farm. 107 r*pi K" " " S -*11111 \ r \t Issiijiiiinfli ■pt' pi. ^► F« p . AI rt i/i p* <3 i r* P ( P * y*i I . p, [ ’’j ■■SS SJ?S pi J1 :i1 i £ 3 5 8 S i V , 1 ir u f ^ttuoo^gagpr- n p ■ IP ** « * V • 4^ pi Pi I - Ifl « ^;s jis *j i ^i ?u -* 9 •« p* IP v PI S 117 pi p'p|«Vk«*^-*i^o*40r«<*r«v h ^ ^ h FHr- H ] Q h r^ p I S S —I•S^ F* i1* pi PT P P Pi — I »- I

P i »4 M ^1r n 4 I I —I H FI ,1 Ih ft J I ^F Q Pi 3 ' 3 I 4 p I g C E l ff :3 d a piIP I ! I M S !j l t K l i l ? I I:» I9 ;I1S2*5?§§ ^ aifii 3s O * pi -P I +r R i S ! SK p t r '# ,1-1 #i H H P n *p pi pi 3 8 8 ! s r . s s * s s * s * s a ? 3: 3 ¥ I p sis: a! * fi O 1 Sc Rn t In in I t In « hp p ^ * p s | ip P Pi e t >£ •1 *i : " : a c p t s * a ie s s i! ^sssssssissaiss j —i ** * * h -»"** --••33333 i\\ TABLE A-4. Corn Average Yields, Irrigation Water Applied, Rainfall, Plant Population, and Fertilizer Application— Montcalm County Trial and Fanners' Data. Yield Year N0^ Hybrids Water bu./acre Population (inches) * Date of . . . . Irrigation a Irr. N-Irr. Diff. Irr, Rain Total 1,000/acre --------------Irr, Fertilizer lb./acre --------------- N-Irr. 1968 56 64 63 56 4 year average 162,5 143.6 146.0 136.1 28.2 102.9 85.5 134.3 40.7 12.5 5.5 60.5 6 .0 96.0 40.1 7.5 6,28 147.1 78.2 68.9 7.88 9.27C 17.15 5.39 14.83 10.60 17.89 20.33 16.60 13.78 June 23-Aug. 17 July 20-Aug. 13 July 26-Aug. 27 July 16-Sept. 7 20,300 19,900 19,500 20,300 19,900 19,500 160 213 205 19,600 19,600 236 Farmers' Datad 1971 22 1970 121.8 125.0 130.0 Normal a 47.5 83.0 71.0 74.3 42.0 59.0 7.16 — - - 2 .6 8.27 9.7 — 8.58 — June-Aug. — — P 2O 5 K 2O Irr. and N-Irr. Montcalm County Trial 1971 1970 1969 N 140 160 160 190 140 160 160 190 1971 21,400 22,700 - - 17,500 147 17,600 111 * « 36 64,5 124f 55.0 106 12.5 18 June, July, and August. b Derived from Research Report, Montcalm Experimental Farm, 1971, p. 20; 1970, p. 73; 1969, p. 44. The trial was on Montcalm sandy loam. c Thirty years average rainfall is 9.01 inches (3.14 June, 2.5 July, and 3.37 August), d e Derived from Appendix Table A - 3. f Irrigated. Non-irrigated. g Difference. TABLE A-5. Seed Varieties Used for Irrigated and Non-Imgated Corn, 1971. a Seed Type Farm Number u a t> c 0 •H fit lO rH in m H f" m U V V c V* V V c 0 •H 0. u U 3 x 3 10 11 pH pH 109 1 2 U1 o in m Q) rH O' c x x x x x x x x x x x x x a The same types of seed were used for irrigated and non-irrigated corn. 110 TABLE A - 6. Farm Number Date of Planting and Harvesting for Irrigated and Non-Irrigated Corn.a Planting Date 1971 Harvesting Date 1970 1 May 1-5 September 3 0 2 April 23 started October 15 3 April 2 3-May 20 September 15 started 4 April 26-May 4 October 1-15 5 May 1-21 September 20November 1 6 May 3-9 October 7 May 1-5 September 20October 10 8 April 3 0-June 4 October 25December 15 9 April 20-May 15 September 21November 15 10 May 1— 2 5 September 15December 11 May 1-20 September 14November 5 12 April 20-May 1 October 12 started 13 May 1-5 November 15 finished 14 May 10-14 September 21 started Most of the farmers reported the above dates as their usual practice. Dates of planting and harvesting for irrigated and non-irrigated corn were the same for the majority of the farmers. Ill TABLE A-8. Pumping Unit, Pipe Lines, and Sprinkler of Self-Propelled Giant Sprinkler Systems, 1971. Motor Pressure (P.S.I.) Farm Number Type H.P. Pump Nozzle Pump G.P.M. Sprinkler G.P.M. Nozzle Size (inch) Pipes (Aluminum) Length (feet) 1 E 60 135 80 600 600 1.3 2 115 1,100 20 0 E E LP E D 60 60 14S 60 115 145 145 160 NN 80 80 75 NN 70 635 450 550 625 550 600 600 650 500 600 750 1.2 #2 70 90 90 1.5 100 110 125 125 125 NN 3 #1 D E 30 plastic 30 1.4 1.5 1.5 1 5/8 1.5 1 5/8 1.4 1.5 30 30 30 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 D E 120 200 120 60 135 *NN equals not known. 70 85 900 550 600 1,200 650 500 600 475 500 550 380 475 30 30 30 NN Diameter (inch) 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 6 6 NN Total (feet) NNa 1,650 4,000 5,280 2,640 1,930 4,560 7,500 4,000 4,500 NN 1.6 1.5 1 5/8 1 3/8 1.5 NN 30 NN 6 NN 1,800