ANALYSIS OF
AGRICULTURAL
POTENTIAL
FOR
DESERT LAND
ENTRIES IN
NEVADA
BY
JUDY E. NELSON
REGIONAL ECONOMIST
MAY 1979
ISOL
IPfll!')
m:
i
o
N421
1 9 7 '-/
o
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
NEVADA STATE OFFICE
RENO, NEVADA
-
6o( ■ '
-
ANALYSIS
OF
AGRICULTURAL POTENTIAL
FOR
DESERT LAND ENTRIES
IN
NEVADA
Judy E. Nelson
Regional Economist
Bureau of Land Management
Reno , Nevada
May, 1979
-■■■ ■ ■
-■:
■:■■ t['r?S:
am
■
; :; '•■:..
'■'.•■;:..''■-..'
!'
:
I .'.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction
Agriculture in Nevada 2
Desert Land Entries in Nevada 4
Assumptions Used in Economic Analysis
Irrigation and Land Development Costs
Labor and Machinery Costs
Yields and Prices Received
Crop Budget Analysis 10
Alfalfa Hay
Small Grains
Potatoes
Alfalfa Seed
Rotation Systems
Summary and Conclusions 13
Bibliography 38
Appendices
A. Crop Budgets 41
B. Budget Summaries 57
JH M
List of Tables
Page
1 - Trends in Nevada Agriculture, 1940-1974 15
2 - Major Crops Harvested in Nevada, 1977 16
3 - Nevada Farm Proprietors' Income, Totaled by 17
County, 1971-1976
4 - Average Farm Proprietors' Income, 1971-1976 18
5 - A Comparison of Agriculture in Nevada and 19
Surrounding States
6 - Acreage Transferred Under the Desert Land 20
Entry and Homestead Acts
7 - Desert Land Entry Applications, Allowed and 21
Patented, From July 1, 1951 to July 1, 1976
8 - Estimated Costs of a 1,500 GPM and 3,000 GPM 22
Irrigation Well
9 - Irrigation and Land Development Costs 23
(Center Pivot, Side Roll)
10 - Prices Received for Crops in Nevada, 1974-1978 25
11 - Costs and Returns for Alfalfa Hay (3 cuttings) 26
Using Three Year Average Prices, 1976-1978
12 - Costs and Returns for Alfalfa Hay (2 cuttings) 27
Using Three Year Average Prices, 1976-1978
13 - Costs and Returns for Spring Wheat Using Three 28
Year Average Prices, 1976-1978
14 - Costs and Returns for Potatoes Using Three Year 29
Average Prices, 1976-1978
15 - Costs and Returns for Alfalfa Seed Using Three 30
Year Average Prices, 1976-1978
16 - Rotation Systems Average Annual Net Returns 31
(Based on 1976-1978 Average Prices)
ii
List of Illustrations
Page
1 - Trends in Farming in Nevada, 1940-1974 32
2 - Variations in Average Net Farm Income, 1970-1977 33
3 - Net Income by Yield - Alfalfa 34
4 - Net Income by Yield - Spring Wheat 35
5 - Net Income by Yield - Potatoes 36
6 - Net Income by Yield - Alfalfa Seed 37
in
"*c*
INTRODUCTION
For the most part, farming in the arid West is accomplished with the
use of irrigation, and irrigation has always been a relatively expensive
proposition. The Desert Land Entry Act was passed by Congress in 1877
in recognition that land must be held in larger quantities than avail-
able through the Homestead Act to justify the expense of irrigation.
The 1877 Desert Land Entry Act provided that an individual could receive
640 acres for $1.25/acre for the purpose of reclaiming the land for
agriculture through the application of water. Amendments in 1891 and
1915 reduced the acreage to 320 acres (640 for a family) and contained
specific requirements for irrigation.
During the most active period for filing of Desert Land Entries (DLE)
in Nevada (1950-1964), 7,152 applications were received. On June 4,
1964, the Secretary of the Interior closed the State of Nevada to petition
filings under the various agricultural entry acts: Desert Land, Home-
stead, and Pittman Acts. The reason for the closure was concern about
appropriation of water in some valleys due to the agricultural entries.
The closure was to allow time for assessment, in an orderly fashion, of
the water availability and agricultural potential of the valleys.
The moratorium on Desert Land Entries was lifted in Nevada on January 1,
1979, as a result of litigation filed by the State of Nevada. In the
first 90 days after the moratorium was lifted, the Bureau of Land Man-
agement's (BLM) Nevada State Office responded to over 8,000 inquiries
on DLEs. During the initial 90 day filing period (January 2 - April 2,
1979) 1,745 applications were received.
This paper assesses the economics facing the potential DLE applicant in
Nevada. In order to understand the present situation, a brief background
on Nevada agriculture and a history of DLEs in Nevada is presented.
An analysis of the costs and returns associated with DLEs follows. The
DLE applicant is faced with a wide range of variables including such
factors as prices received for products; costs of inputs; and physical
conditions such as climate, soil, and water availability. Given the
number of variables, the analysis developed remains general with an
income level determined by the most probable set of variables. The
effects of changes in the variables is also discussed.
AGRICULTURE IN NEVADA
Currently there are approximately 2,000 farms in Nevada. (Farms in-
clude "ranches".) Nevada follows national trends with the total
number of farms steadily declining. From 1940 to 1974, the number
of farms decreased by 1,497, a decline of 45 percent. The total
number of private acres in farms increased during the same period
from 3,785,106 to 10,813,610 acres. In 1974 the average size of a
farm in Nevada was 5,209 acres, although the median size was in the
260 to 499 acre category (20, p. 1-1).*
The majority of land in farms is pasture or rangeland. Harvested crop-
land in Nevada has always been a small proportion of farm land, ranging
from 12 percent of the total acreage in 1940 to 7 percent of the total
acreage in 1974. In absolute numbers, total cropland increased from
435,855 acres in 1940 to 551,300 acres in 1974 (26 percent increase).
Irrigated land, which includes irrigated pasture, increased only 3
percent during the same period (from 755,636 acres in 1940 to 777,510
acres in 1974) (20, p. 1-1) . These trends are shown in Illustration
1 and Table 1.
Reasons for lack of agricultural development in Nevada include: limited
precipitation which results in little water availability for agriculture;
lack of surface water which can be used for irrigation; a harsh climate
with a short growing season in much of the State; rugged topography;
alkaline soils in many valleys; and distance from major markets. Also,
land ownership patterns are sometimes cited as a reason for lack of
development. This reason can be discounted because of the small pro-
portion of private land that is currently cultivated and the limited
success of agricultural entry programs. The latter is discussed in
the next section.
Agriculture in Nevada has traditionally centered on the livestock
industry, which accounts for 67 percent of the value of agricultural
products sold in 1974. Only 52 percent of the value of crops produced
were sold; the majority of the remaining crops were used as livestock
feed. Hay accounted for 67 percent of the total value of crops in
1974 (20, p. 1-5). In 1977, hay's proportion dropped to 60 percent
of the value of production with alfalfa seed (12 percent of value) and
potatoes (17 percent of value) accounting for the majority of the
remainder. Potatoes are a major new crop in Nevada; thus, acres in
potatoes were not reported prior to 1975. In 1974, 8,500 acres were
in potatoes; in 1976 this grew to 14,000 acres. In 1978, 17,000 acres
were in potatoes (14, p.3)(9). Table 2 shows major crops and the value
of production for 1977.
Agricultural income has fluctuated widely in Nevada since 1970 (Illus-
tration 2). Farm income reached an all-time high in 1973 with an
* References are cited as numbered in the Bibliography. On occasion,
specific pages are also noted.
average income of $27,000. Average income dropped to $6,049 in 1977
(14, p. 23). Income received by farmers in Nevada is highly correlated
with price fluctuations in the livestock industry. These fluctuations
become even more dramatic when data from the individual counties are
examined (Tables 3 and 4) . Lander, Eureka, Lincoln, and Nye Counties
showed a net negative farm proprietors' income from 1974 to 1976. Elko
and White Pine Counties both had negative farm proprietors' income in
1976. This means many ranchers either had to support their ranch with
outside income or previous earnings, increase their indebtedness, or
go out of business. Counties that are not as dependent on the cattle
industry avoided much of the fluctuation in farm income experienced
by the "cow counties". Income in Churchill, Pershing, Humboldt, Doug-
las, and Lyon Counties showed the most stability. In Nevada in 1974
54 percent of the farmers were reported as working off the farm with
32 percent reporting over 200 days of off- farm work (16, p. 1-2).
Table 5 shows agriculture in Nevada in comparison with the surrounding
states. Nevada has the smallest number of farmers, and the second
largest average acreage per farm. Average annual income per farm in
Nevada has been the most variable of the states. In terms of total
agricultural cash receipts, Nevada is a small contributor to the
regional picture with only 39 percent of the value of receipts of Utah
(on similar acreage) and only 2 percent of the value of receipts of
California in 1977 (13, p. 463). California, however, is the nation's
largest agricultural producer.
■?>*» ,$>*■ \&9- «..qM np^
DESERT LAND ENTRIES IN NEVADA
Since 1877, 376,388 acres have been transferred to 1,687 private citi-
zens through the Desert Land Entry Act in Nevada. Table 6 shows the
acreage involved in agricultural transfers under the Desert Land Entry
and Homestead Acts for Nevada and the surrounding states. Total land
transferred under these acts in Nevada was considerably less than land
transferred in other western states.
It was the intent of these acts to make land easily available as an
incentive for settlement in the West. The low rate of transfer in
Nevada can be explained by several factors. First, agriculture in
Nevada is constrained by the availability of water. Nevada has the
lowest average rainfall of any state. This limited precipitation gen-
erally falls as snow in the winter instead of rain during the growing
season. There are few rivers in Nevada that have year-round water, and
the annual yield of groundwater is also limited by the lack of pre-
cipitation. The State obtained title to lands surrounding most of the
available surface water by relinquishing their rights to school grant
lands in 1880. The State land, in turn, was sold to stockmen and is
not available to agricultural entry.
Other major factors are rugged topography and distance to major markets.
The costs associated with marketing have historically put Nevada at a
comparative disadvantage. Climatic conditions and a short growing
season in the northern portion of the State also contribute to a lack
of agricultural development. A final factor is the poor alkaline soils
found in many valley bottoms.
Applications for DLEs have followed definite trends. Nationally, activ-
ity was heavy after the initial passage of the Act with over a half
million applications being filed per year in the first decade. Require-
ments for irrigation were not spelled out and many entries were for the
purpose of obtaining control over stock water. Many acres of sub-irrigated
meadows were claimed during this period. In 1891 and 1915 amendments to
the Act were passed to correct these abuses by reducing the acreage to
320 acres, requiring a $3.00/acre investment, and calling for cultivation
of one-eighth of the entry with systems capable of irrigating 80 percent
of the entry.
In Nevada from 1877 to 1923, 611,528 acres were entered with only 143,077
acres being patented. No easy method exists to segregate the effects of
DLEs from other agricultural developments. A summary of Nevada land
tenure in 1926 shows that stockmen owned 68 percent of the private land,
exclusive of railroad lands, and leased 98 percent of the railroad land.
Of the 362,522 acres of harvested cropland reported in the 1925 Agricul-
tural Census, 94 percent produced either hay or other forage.
Activity under the Act was limited in the period preceding World War II.
Land that was readily irrigated with surface water had already passed
into private ownership. After World War II, however, high land prices,
high incomes, and technology to pump groundwater all contributed to
renewed interest in DLEs. Applications filed from 1950 to 1964 resulted
in 187,051 acres patented in the State, over 50 percent of the total of
all Nevada DLE acres.
Another rise in the number of applications occurred in the late 1950s as
a result of heavy promotional activity. In 1958, 846 applications for
DLEs were filed in contrast to 136 applications filed the previous year.
Increased interest continued with 1,613 applications filed in 1959 and
895 applications filed in 1960. Activity was also heavy nationally in
this period as a result of promotional activity in DLEs and other
agricultural entry acts. Because of a large backlog of applications
the Secretary of the Interior declared a moratorium on applications for
all kinds of homesteading on public lands which lasted from February 14,
1961, to September 4, 1962. Heavy filings on DLEs resumed with the
lifting of the moratorium and continued until discontinued in Nevada
by the Secretary of the Interior in 1964. All pending applications
were to be resolved on their merit. Table 7 shows applications filed
during this period and their resolution.
In the filing period from 1950 to 1964, 7,152 applications for DLEs were
received. Of these, only 1,293 applications were allowed on 348,388
acres, a success rate of 18 percent. Many of the applications were
ill-conceived and some were fraudulent. Private lands, lands on hill-
sides, and lands with no potential water were in the filings. Nevada
is the only state in which non-residents can apply, and a survey con-
ducted of applicants between 1954 and 1959 showed that 90 percent were
non-residents. The situation resulted in the Nevada State Senate
petitioning the Congress of the United States (Nev. Stats., 933, (1959))
to repeal Desert Land Entry Acts. Nevada was closed to filing petition
applications by the Secretary of the Interior on June 4, 1964.
It is interesting to speculate on the impact of the Desert Land Entry
Act on agriculture in Nevada. The Act has not prevented the decline in
the number of farms in Nevada. A study made in 1962 showed that of the
DLE land patented between 1950 and 1959, 56 percent was still used in
part-time farms, 22 percent was used for non-farm purposes, and 22
percent had been abandoned (21, p. 43). No recent studies exist to
show if these trends are continuing.
Table 1 shows that harvested cropland declined in Nevada from 194C to
1959 by 98,326 acres (23 percent). From 1959 to 1964, harvested crop-
land increased 16,686 acres (50 percent). Undoubtedly, part of the
increase was a direct result of the heavy DLE activity during that
period. The total increase in harvested acres from 1945 to 1974 was
64,458 acres which represents 34 percent of the 187,903 acres patented
under the Desert Land Entry Act in the same period.
There are no clear trends in total irrigated acres (including non-
cultivated pasture). Irrigated acreage peaked in 1964 at 824,515 acres
after having reached a low in 1959 of 542,976 acres. The increase in
irrigated acres in this period was probably due in part to heavy DLE
activity. Irrigation in Nevada is highly dependent on surface water,
and changes in the availability due to lack of precipitation accounts
for much of the variation in acreage. In 1974, only 21,874 net addi-
tional acres had been irrigated since 1940. This represents 12 percent
of the 188,700 acres patented under the Desert Land Entry Act in the
same period. The implication of these statistics is that the Desert
Land Entry Act has had little impact on total irrigated acreage in
Nevada although it might have affected the location of the existing
acreage.
ASSUMPTIONS USED IN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Simulated crop budgets were used to analyze the economics facing a DLE
applicant. Crops analyzed are alfalfa hay, alfalfa seed, potatoes, and
wheat. If wild hay is excluded, these crops represent 97 percent of the
acreage and the majority of the value of crops produced in the State.
Budgets developed are based on preliminary budgets prepared by the
University of Nevada, Division of Agricultural and Resource Economics,
and represent the most current information on the economics facing
existing farmers. To cover the situation faced by new farmers, current
costs of establishing a well and an irrigation system were developed.
Total costs were then compared with the income based on yields likely
in different parts of the State to arrive at net income. Specific
items that deviate from the University budgets are discussed in
greater detail below.
Irrigation and Land Development Costs
Irrigation and land development costs are the major cost items facing the
DLE applicant. Preparation of the land, the development of a deep well
irrigation system, and fuel costs for the system run as high as $90,000
annually C$300 per acre annually). Costs are shown in Table 8-9 and
each of these cost items is discussed separately below.
Land development costs include land clearing, grading, and fencing costs.
Land clearing and grading costs are the most site dependent of all of the
costs discussed. A value of $100/acre was assigned for clearing and
grading costs. There is a tradeoff between land development costs and
irrigation costs. If three to five feet of topsoil exist, moderately
rough land could be graded to permit use of a surface irrigation system.
In this situation, irrigation costs would decrease, but land costs would
increase. Because of the site specificity of the variables involved, a
detailed analysis would have to be made for each location to analyze
tradeoffs. Fencing costs were estimated at $2,100 per mile.
Choice of an irrigation system depends on characteristics of the soil
(water intake rate) and the area's topography. If the land is level
(0.5 percent slope for a border system to 3 percent for a graded furrow
system), or if it can be leveled at a reasonable cost, a surface irri-
gation system can be used. If, however, the land is rough, a sprinkler
irrigation system would have to be used. Costs are shown for both a
center pivot and a side roll system in Table 9. The center pivot system
is self-propelled, is the most tolerant of rough or sloping conditions,
and requires the least labor. Side roll systems require 3.3 times more
labor than a center nivot system but require less water pressure and
hence less fuel. Total capital costs are $41,898 per center pivot
assembly (two assemblies irrigate 260 acres) versus $37,390 per side
roll assemblies (which could irrigate 304 acres) . Costs are also
developed for surface irrigation. Labor is the major cost item that
significantly increases with a surface system. Land development costs
are also assumed to increase to $200 per acre.
Variables that influence well costs are depth, lift, and yield of the
well, and the source of power. Well costs are based on the assumptions
of 500 feet depth, 350 feet lift, and 1,500 gpm yield. Average pumping
depths in Nevada for existing irrigation wells are: 335 feet in Washoe,
Churchill, Mineral, Douglas, Lyon and Storey Counties; 231 feet in Clark
and Lincoln Counties; and 214 feet in the remaining counties (4, p. 12).
The assumption of a 1,500 gpm yield was developed from a study of average
yields of several valleys in Nevada. Two 1,500 gpm wells would be required
to irrigate 320 acres of alfalfa (assumption: four acre feet of water,
100-day growing season, and 24 hour/day operation). Total costs for two
1,500 gpm wells under the above assumptions would be $173,862. If a well
could be developed with a 3,000 gpm yield, these costs would be reduced to
5107,958. The likelihood of developing a 3,000 gpm well would be small.
Both well costs are carried forward in the analysis to show the effects
of the alternative assumptions on net income.
A diesel power unit was chosen for the analysis. Excluding power trans-
mission line costs, at current fuel rates, electrical power units are
considerably cheaper (47 percent of capital costs and 80 percent of fuel
costs) than comparable diesel power units. Power transmission line costs
are approximately three to five dollars/ft. ($15,840 to $26,400/mile) ,
and if the producer pays the entire cost at any distance over six to ten
miles a diesel unit becomes cost effective. (Some electrical power com-
panies have a rebate program available on nower transmission line costs
which would make electrical power more reasonable.) Diesel fuel costs
were calculated at $.48/gallon.
Variables that influence fuel requirements are the pressure needed for
the irrigation system, the pumping depth, the pumping unit's efficiency,
and the amount of water required. Fuel requirements were estimated for
1,500 gpm and 3,000 gpm, respectively, at 9 and 11 gallons per hour for
a surface system; 11 and 13 gallons per hour for a side roll sprinkler
system; and 13 and 15 gallons per hour for a center pivot irrigation
system. Engine maintenance was figured as a percentage of fuel costs
while repairs were figured as a percentage of investment costs (Table 9).
Alfalfa requires the most water of the crops analyzed (48" of water per
acre). Different fuel costs for the other crops were based on irrigation
requirements of 36" of water per acre for alfalfa seed, 25" for potatoes,
and 38" for small grains. Well size was held constant throughout the
analysis because of the requirement to rotate crops to protect the soil
productivity and to prevent declining yields.
An interest rate of 10 percent was used to amortize the capital costs
associated with land development and irrigation systems over the life of
the project. Today's farmer is faced with a tight money market and high
interest rates. The 10 percent rate is below the going commercial rate.
Interest rates at institutions specializing in farm credit as of March
1979, range from S.5 percent (Farmers Home Administration) to 10.5 per-
cent (Federal Land Bank). A short term interest rate of 12.5 percent
was used to figure interest on operating capital.
Labor and Machinery Costs
Labor was divided into operator labor and hired labor in order to show
net income that would accrue to the operator. The breakdown was done by
assuming that the maximum operator labor (including unpaid family members}
is 260 hours per month and that any labor above 260 hours would be hired.
This assumes that the DLE applicant is not expanding an existing operation.
For an existing operation, a portion of the operator's labor charge would
have to be included in the hired labor cost.
The availability of custom services is assumed in the analysis. In some
of the more remote locations, custom services may not be available. Lack
of such service would significantly increase both labor and machinery costs.
No attempt was made to break machinery costs out of the analysis. Fixed
machinery charges (excluding irrigation] are a relatively minor part of
total costs. Fixed machinery costs would vary under different assumptions
on total acreage but the variance has little impact on the cost picture.
Yields and Prices Received
An income figure based on a high, medium, and low yield was developed for
all of the crops. Except for alfalfa hay, the income was based on the
assumption that costs do not vary with the different yields. Although
this is a gross approximation, it allows the reader to see how yield
assumptions affect the income picture. Because of its greater importance
in terms of acreage, alfalfa hay was analyzed in greater detail. The
number of cuttings, the amount of irrigation, and custom work charges
were all allowed to vary with the yield.
Current trices (1978) were initially used in all crop budgets. Prices
received" for crops are one of the most variable factors affecting
farmers. To show the effects of different price assumptions, income
estimates were developed using current prices and normalized prices
(1976-1978 average). " Table 10 shows the prices used in the analysis.
CROP BUDGET ANALYSIS
Crop budgets developed for alfalfa hay, alfalfa seed, wheat, and potatoes
under three alternative irrigation assumptions (center pivot, side roll,
and surface, using two 1,500 gpm wells] are included in Appendix A. The
results of these budgets and budgets developed with a 3,000 gpm well
assumption are summarized for 1976-1978 average prices in Tables 11
through 15. Tables summarizing current prices are included in Appendix
B. Illustrations 3 through 6 show the results for average prices
graphically. The results are discussed by crop below. Because of
the requirements to rotate the crops, the results of the individual
crop budgets must be weighed by their relative length of time in a
rotation system. This is done in the final section.
Alfalfa Hay
Alfalfa hay is produced in every county in the State. Prices received
for alfalfa hay were low during 1978 and have only recently climbed back
to $60/ton. Alfalfa hay yields are lower in Nevada than in some of the
surrounding states due to the short growing seasons. Given the high
costs of developing a deep-well irrigation system, low yields, and low
cash value, income from alfalfa hay production was negative under all
irrigation assumptions at current prices and at normalized prices except
the high yield, low irrigation cost assumption. This is a very restric-
tive assumption requiring a long growing season and easily developed
land.
For the two well, center pivot combination, costs per ton at a yield of
four tons/acre are $94/ton ($85 and $72 for the two well side roll and
surface system, respectively) . These prices represent the minimum price
that alfalfa would have to reach before it would begin to become profit-
able to raise alfalfa. As the yield per acre declines, the costs per
ton become higher making the economics even worse (Tables 11, 12).
Net income for the various yields is shown in Illustration 3. County
averages can be used as a measure of a farmer's expected yield. An
alternative to using county averages is the use of the following
equations which were developed to predict yield (Y) based on growing
season (N - number of days between 28°) (26, p. 54):
Y = .007 N + 1.73 (Humboldt, Lander, Elko, White Pine, and
Eureka)
Y = .007 N + 2.41 (remaining counties)
Y = Yield (tons)
N = Number of days between 28°
10
An example to show how this equation works is Ruby Valley with an 85 day
growing season. Predicted yield is 2.3 tons which generates a loss of
between $120 and $210 per acre (Illustration 3) . The breakeven yield
occurs at 5.4 tons with surface irrigation and over six tons for the
center pivot and side roll systems.
Fixed machinery costs (excluding irrigation costs) are a minor component
($15/acre) of total costs of raising alfalfa hay. Even if an existing
farmer is expanding his operation and he owns all his own equipment, he
would not be able to profitably develop a deep-well irrigation system to
raise alfalfa.
Small Grains
Prices received for wheat and barley in 1978 are lower than the prices
received in 1974. Both barley and wheat are important in crop rotation
systems in the State.
The budgets developed in the appendix and summarized in Table 13 are
based on spring wheat. Winter wheat is closely comparable with spring
wheat and the same numbers can be used. To adjust the budgets for barley,
a cost adjustment of $2.05/acre and an income adjustment of $49.43/acre
for a net return adjustment of $51.93/acre should be made.
Income is negative under all price, yield, and irrigation assumptions.
Potatoes
Potatoes are a relatively new crop to Nevada with significant acreage
being planted in potatoes since 1974. Prices for potatoes averaged
$3.00/cwt in 1978 but currently have dropped to $2.50/cwt.
Potatoes are the highest risk crop of those analyzed. Annual costs are
$312,738 versus $111,439 for alfalfa hay (2, 1,500 gpm - side roll irri-
gation). Hence, the potential losses are up to three times greater for
potatoes than for other crops.
Returns are negative for average prices and medium yield assumptions
for all irrigation systems. This situation becomes worse if one con-
siders current (1979) prices. Returns are positive under all high
yield assumptions.
Alfalfa Seed
Alfalfa seed is the only crop raised in Nevada that is nationally signif-
icant with Nevada ranked fourth in the nation for alfalfa seed production.
Alfalfa seed production is concentrated in Humboldt, Pershing, and Lander
Counties and requires fairly restrictive growing conditions, i.e., suit-
able soils and climate and relative isolation from other crops.
11
Alfalfa seed is the only crop analyzed that has shown a steady increase
in price.
Under high yield assumptions, income is positive under all irrigation
systems for both average and current prices. Income is also positive
under medium yields and current prices for favorable irrigation
assumptions. Current prices are at an all-time high. Under 1976-1978
average prices income is negative under medium yield assumptions.
Rotation Systems
Three rotation systems are shown in Table 16: alfalfa seed-small grains,
potatoes-small grains, and alfalfa hay-small grains. Rotation systems
are necessary in farming to prevent declining yields through loss of
soil productivity. Income is negative under these systems except under
the assumptions of average prices and high yields for the potato-small
grains and alfalfa seed-small grains. These assumptions are very
restrictive and not likely to occur in most instances.
12
Summary and Conclusions
Less acreage has been transferred to citizens in Nevada under agricultural
entry acts (Homestead, Carey, and Desert Land Entry Acts) than in any other
western state. Reasons for the lack of success of the agricultural entry
acts include: limited rainfall which results in little water available
for agriculture; lack of surface water which can be used for irrigation;
rugged topography; a harsh climate and limited growing season in much of
the State; alkali soils; and distance from major markets. All of these
factors combine to make farming marginal in Nevada.
The economic situation facing the Desert Land Entry applicant today is
as bad or worse than that faced historically. A deep well irrigation
system would probably have to be developed in order to open new land.
Nevada's valleys are alluvium deposits and well yields will generally
support only limited acreage precluding any economics-of -scale. Well
development and pumping unit costs will run $173,862 to irrigate 320
acres, with annual fuel costs from $18,000 to $20,000. Irrigation
system costs and land development costs will have to be added onto those
costs, resvlting in total development costs ranging from $200,000 to
$280,000.
The price received for crops has not kept up with the increase in pro-
duction costs. Prices for alfalfa hay, wheat, and barley have declined
since 1974. Prices received for potatoes in 1978 were 18 percent above
the 1974 level; however, current 1979 prices are equal to the 1974 level.
Only alfalfa seed has shown a steady increase at 39 percent above the
1974 level. Excluding other forms of hay, these crops represent 97
percent of the acreage and the majority of the value of crops in Nevada.
Production costs, on the other hand, increased a total of 32 percent
between 1974 and 1978.
Crop budgets were developed for alfalfa hay, alfalfa seed, wheat, and
potatoes. Budgets are based on current costs of existing farmers and
estimates of the costs of developing deep well irrigation systems. For
low value crops (alfalfa hay and wheat) a negative return was obtained
under all irrigation and yield assumptions at current prices. Income
from wheat was also negative under all irrigation assumptions and at
1976-1978 average prices. With average prices, income from alfalfa hay
was positive only under high yields and low irrigation costs, an
assumption that requires a relatively long growing season and easily
developed agricultural land.
The economic situation is slightly improved if high value crops (alfalfa
seed and potatoes) are considered. Income is positive under all high
yield assumptions and under medium yield and favorable irrigation
assumptions for both current and average prices. These crops are high
risk crops with annual costs for potatoes at $313,000 compared with an
annual cost of $111,000 for alfalfa under the same irrigation assumptions.
Assuming medium yields, a $.50/cwt change in price of potatoes can convert
a $52,000 net income into a -$214 net loss. Potatoes and alfalfa seed
15
also have a much more restrictive set of conditions under which they
can be grown. They are not adaptable to most Nevada counties.
When potatoes and alfalfa seed are included in crop rotation systems,
income is positive only under high yields and low irrigation cost
assumptions. These assumptions are extremely restrictive, making the
economics negative in most instances.
14
TABLE 1
Trends in Nevada Agriculture, 1940-1974
Year
1940
1945
1950
1954
1959
1964
1969
1974
Source:
Number
of
Farms
3,573
3,429
3,110
2,857
2,354
2,156
2,112
2,076
Land in
Farms
(acres)
3,785,106
6,178,004
7,063,525
8,231,270
10,942,936
10,482,500
10,708,346
10,813,610
Average
Size
(acres)
1,059
1,802
2,274
2,881
4,649
4,862
5,070
5,209
Harvested
Cropland
(acres)
435,855
486,842
421,202
360,011
337,529
507,215
521,024
551,300
Irrigated
Land
(acres)
755,636
674,204
727,498
567,498
542,976
824,515
752,696
777,510
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1974 Census
of Agriculture, Nevada State and County Data, Vol. 1. Part 28,
1977, p. 1-1.
15
TABLE 2
Major Crops Harvested in Nevada, 1977
Acres Harvested
Production
Value
a/ !
of Production — ■' i
Acres
Per-
Per
Total
Per
Dollars
Per-
(000's)
cent
Acre
(000 's)
Unit
Unit
(000's)
cent
Winter Wheat
16.0
3
60.0
960
Bu.
2.65
2,544
3
Spring Wheat
12.0
2
50.0
600
Bu.
2.60
1,560
2
Oats
4.0
1
55.0
220
Bu.
1.30
286
*b/
Barley-
19.0
4
65.0
1235
Bu.
1.95
2,408
3
Alfalfa Seed
15.5
3
520.0
8060
Lb.
1.25
10,075
12
Cotton, lint
1.3
*
628.0
1.7
Bale
.57
465
1
Cottonseed
-
-
-
.8
Ton
78.00
62
*
Potatoes
14.0
3
340.0
4760
Cwt.
2.90
13,804
17
Corn for Silage
3.0
1
15.0
45
Ton
21.00
945
1
All Hay
420.0
83
2.1
879
Ton
55.00
48,785
60
Alfalfa Hay
180.0
36
3.4
603
Ton
NA
NA
All other Hay
240.0
48
1.2
276
Ton
NA
NA
i
TOTAL
504.8
100.0
80,934
100
a/ Excludes all Government support payments,
b/ * - Less than 1 percent.
Source: Nevada Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Nevada Agricultural Statistics,
1977.
16
TABLE 3
Nevada Farm -Proprietors' Income; Totaled by County, 1971-1976
{the«&a»ds of dollars)
Farm Proprietors ' Income
County
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Churchill
4,710
6,333
9,521
8,656
6,306
8,521
Clark
192
170
158
1,097
1,250
1,487
Douglas
1,409
2,052
2,437
1,828
1,902
1,363
Elko
5,361
7,573
8,617
2,001
222
-1,647
Esmeralda
382
434
496
322
366
149
Eureka
375
30
-1
r 1,087
-1,739
-1,866
Humboldt
1,395
1,545
3,652
1,459
3,340
2,219
Lander
43
286
542
t681
-1,242
-1,406
Lincoln
-85
48
252
r474
.664
r931
Lyon
2,568
3,599
5,839
4,285
4,746
4,180
Mineral
46
127
273
199
187
140
Nye
45
295
1,019
-179
-412
-691
Pershing
3,680
3,957
5,765
3,987
3,934
4,241
Storey
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Washoe
1,234
1,613
2,205
1,388
1,426
1,132
White Pine
1,006
1,646
1,848
248
332
-193
Carson City
264
120
403
20
17
0
NEVADA
22,625
29,827
43,026
23,069
19,971
16,698
N/A - Not Available
Source: U.S. Department
Regional Econom
of Commerce , Bureau
ics Information Syst
of Econom
em, July 1
ic Analys
978.
Is,
17
m^^^naBn^n^HHnira
TABLE 4
Average Farm Proprietors' Income; 1971-1976
[dollars)
Average Income
2/
•€owrty
No. of
Farms
1/
1971
1972
1973
1974 ..
1975
1976 .
Churchill
430
10,953
14,728
1
22,142
20,130
14,665
19,816
Clark
147
1,306
1,156
1,075
7,453
8,503
10,116
Douglas
107
13,168
19,178
22,776
17,084
17,775
12,738
Elko
244
21,971
31,037
35,316
8,201
910
-6,750
Esmeralda
26
14,692
16,692
19,077
12,385
14,077
5,731
Eureka
62
6,049
484
-16
-17,532
-28,048
-30,097
Humboldt
141
9,894
10,957
25,901
10,348
23,688
15,738
Lander
58
741
4,931
9,345
-11,741
-21,414
-24,241
Lincoln
75
rl,133
640
3,360
-6,320
-8,853
-12,413
Lyon
268
9,582
13,429
21,787
15,989
17,709
15,619
Mineral
28
1,643
4,536
9,750
7,107
6,679
5,000
Nye •
97
464
3,041
10,505
-1,845
-4,247
-7,124
Pershing
97
37,938
40,794
59,433
41,103
40,557
43,722
Storey
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Washoe
176
7,011
9,165
12,528
7,886
8,102
6,432
White Pine
100
10,060
16,460
18,480
2,480
3,320
-1,930
Carson City
15
17,600
8,000
26,867
1,333
1,133
0
NEVADA
2;076
10,900
14,370
20,730
11,110
9:,620
8,05C
N/A - Not Available.
Source : ^
U.S. Department of Commerce
Agriculture, Nevada State £
!, Bureau of
ind County D£
the Census
ita, Vol. ]
, 1974 Censt
, Part 28, 3
is of
977, p II-
2
Obtained by dividing farm j
nf famr; .
>roprietors :
.ncome (Tat
>le 3 ) by i
lumber
TABLE 5
A Comparison of Agriculture in Nevada and Surrounding States
Nevada Arizona Ca 1 i fornia Oregon Idaho Utah
Number of Farms - 1971 ' 2,076 5,803 67,674 26,753 23,680 12,184
Total Acres in Farms - 1971 10, 815, 610 37,944,191 33,385,619 18,241,445 14,274,258 10,610,050
Average Acres per Farm 1974 ' 5,209 6,539 493 68^ 603 871
Total Cash Receipts 1974 (thousands
of dollars) 2 136,488 1,201,547 8,669,190 1,107,165 1,464,756 323,510
Number of Farms - 1977 2 2,100 6,600 75,000 34,000 27,000 13,400
{% Change in number of farms 1974-1977) 0% 14% 11% 27% 14% 10
Ca
i fornia
67,674
33
385,619
493
8
669,190
75,000
11
9
445,040
9
5,609
8,650
11,378
15,995
32,393
26
753
8
,241
445
682
1
107
165
34
000
27%
1
,057
737
-4%
2
,426
2
325
1
,355
3
.542
11
,045
Total Cash Receipts 1977 (thousands
of dollars) 2 149,714 1,203,112 9,445,040 1,057,737 1,212,699 382,027
(% Change in Cash Receipts 1974-1977) 10% 0% 9% -4% -17% 1
Realized Net Income per Farm (dollars)
1950 7,039 11,232 5,609 2,426 2,. '18 2,312
I960 3,503 14,379 8,650 2,325 4,353 1,932
1964 -1,357 10,403 11,378 1,355 4,249 1,032
1969 6,615 21,948 15,995 3,542 7,599 3,278
1973 24,074 34,696 32,393 11,045 15,819 9,181
Sources: 1 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1974 Census of Agriculture, State Summary (various states)
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977.
2 U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics (various years)
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
3 U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service Farm Income Estimates 1949-1973, FIS-224 Supplement, 1974.
TABLE 6
Acreage Transferred Under The Desert Land Entry And Homestead Acts
Nevada Arizona California Oregon Idaho Utah
Desert Land Entries
1877-1976
Number
Acres
1,687
376,338
2,343
507,392
6,318
1,210,257
2,389
368,007
7,617
1,503,817
3,308
514,764
Homestead Entries
1868-1976
Number
Acres
4,370
704,167
20,268
4,134,356
66,738
10,476,665
62,926
10,513,945
60,221
9,733,455
16,798
3,607,683
NJ
Stock Raising Home:
1917-1976
stead
Number
Acres
930
494,637
6,226
2,985,746
8,464
3,423,222
8,282
3,375,688
7,818
3,563,294
5,150
2,800,709
Total Acreage
1,575,142
7,627,494
15,110,144
14,257,640
14,800,566
6,923,156
Source: U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Public Land Statistics 1976,
Washington, D.C.; U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977.
TABLE 7
Desert Land Entry Applications, Allowed and Patented
From July 1, 1951 to July 1, 1976 (Fiscal Years)
Fiscal Year
(1940-1944)
(1945-1949)
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
Number of
Allowed
]
'atented
Applications
No.
Acres
No.
Acres
(4)
(520)'
(6)
(797)
(9)
(1280)
(8)
(1172)
115
(10)
(2161)
CI)
(320)
24
CD
(81)
0
0
206
27
5763
1
160
399
43
10087
2
200
213
122
29095
0
0
399
70
19828
1
157
242
15
3718
2
240
136
168
41094
5
1336
846
18
3294
13
2802
1613
50
11593
14
3165
895
98
26509
21
4572
413*
220
61453
32
7906
0*
34
9113
65
15248
863*
162
47315
79
20127
788
33
8968
89
24650
116
35122
121
34568
62
18856
58
15154
26
8011
53
14457
18
5369
45
12138
4
1280
56
1602
1
**
47
28
8
13428
7954
1923
6
1920
10
5
1
1
1
3004
1620
320
320
320
Total Action on
Filings 1950-1564
7152
1293
348388
758
187371
*Filings on DLE's closed from February 14, 1961 to September 4, 1962.
**Acreage previously recorded.
Note - Number in parentheses () indicates applications received before
1950. The numbers were included for comparison with Table 1.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Public Land Statistics,
Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office 1940-1977.
TABLE 8
Estimated Costs of 1,500 GPM and 3,000 GPM Irrigation Well
Well Costs: Based on 500' gravel pack, 16" casing
Test well 8" 500' @ $15.00/ft.
Electric log 5 hydro geology work
Pilot hole 12V hole § $15. 00/ ft.
Ream to 24" @ $40. 00/ ft.
16" casing 500' @ $12. 00/ ft.
Well screen I $42.00/ft. x 44 ft.
Select gravel for packing 26 c.y. @ $10/c.y.
Grouting-7 c.y. grout § $40.00/c.y.
Well platform 5 c.y. concrete @ $100/c.y.
Miscellaneous work by the hour
Developing § $125.00/hr. x 20 hr.
Setting screen @ $125.00/hr. x 10 hr.
$49,138
Costs of Engine, Column, and Pump
$ 32,373
$ 7
,500
1
,500
7
,500
20
,000
6
,000
1
,848
260
280
500
2
,500
1
,250
1,500 gpm with 350' lift
166 HP diesel engine, right
Angle drive 12" bowls, 10" column,
13/16" shaft
Transportation-engine column § pump 420
Install @ $125/hr. x 40 hrs . 5,000
SUBTOTAL (1,500 gpm well) $ 37,793
(Total (1,500 gpm well) $ 86,931)
Total - 2, 1,500 gpm wells $173,862
3,000 gpm with 350' lift $ 53,400
330 HP diesel engine, right
Angle drive, 14" bowls, 12" column,
15/16" shaft
Transportation -engine, column, pump 420
Install @ $125/hr. x 40 hrs. 5,000
i
SUBTOTAL (3,000 gpm well) $ 58,820
Total (3,000 gpm well) $107,958
Source: BLM Nevada State Office, February 1979.
TABLE 9
Irrigation and Land Development Costs
Center Pivot - 260 Irrigated Acres
Total
Annual
Annual
"osts
Life
Cost
Cost
Cost/Acre
Land Development *■
Shaping ^ grad-
ing ($100/acre)
30
yrs.
26000
2758
10
61
Fencing
30
yrs.
6300
668
2
57
Well Costs 1
Well (2 1,500 gpm)
25
yrs.
98276
10827
41
.64
Engine, pump and
gearhead (diesel)
8
yrs.
75586
14168
54
.49
Irrigation System
Center pivot
assembly 15 yrs. 83796
(2 @ $41,898 ea.)
Total Capital Costs 289958
11017
39438
42.37
151.69
Operating Costs l
Power*
(13 gal./hr. - 48"/acre)*
Engine maintenance (5% of fuel)
Pump § engine repairs
Center pivot -assembly repairs
(4% investment)
Subtotal
Labor
Total Operating Cost
TOTAL COSTS
23494
1175
7142
5552
35163
702
35865
75303
90
36
4
52
27
47
12
89
135
.24
2
.70
137.94
289.63
*BLM estimate - 3000 gpm well 8 15 gallons/hour.
Source: 1. BLM Nevada State Office, Feb. 1979.
2. Fred Meyer, Gordon Myer, and Ronald Shane. Irrigation Costs of
Side Roll, Center Pivot and Low Pressure Center Pivot for Diesel
and Electric Power, Reno, Nevada: University of Nevada, Reno,
Division of Agricultural and Resource Economics (in press).
23
TABLE 9 - Continued
Irrigation and Land Development Costs
Side Roll - 304 Acres
Total
Annual
Annual
Costs
Life
Cost
Cost
Cost/Acre
Land development 1
Shaping § grad-
ing ($100/acre)
30
yrs.
30400
3225
10.61
Fencing
30
yrs.
6300
668
2.20
Well Costs 1
Well (2, 1500 gpm)
25
yrs.
98276
10827
35.62
Engine, pump, and
gearhead (diesel)
8
yrs.
75586
14168
46.61
Irrigation System -
Side roll assem-
12
yrs.
74780
10975
36.10
bly (2 @ $37,390
each)
Total Capital Costs
280942
Operating Costs 2
Power (11 gal./hr. - 48"/acre)*
Engine maintenance (5% of fuel)
Pump and engine repairs
Side roll assembly repairs (5% of investment)
Subtotal
Labor (2 hrs. @ 4.50/hr.)
Total Operating Cost
TOTAL COSTS
39863
37903
79766
131.14
23244
76.45
1161
3.82
7023
23.10
3739
12.30
35167
115.67
2736
9.00
124.67
255.81
*BLM estimate - 3000 gpm well @ 13 gallons/hour.
Source: 1. BLM Nevada State Office, Feb. 1979.
2. Fred Meyer, Gordon Myer, and Ronald Shane, Irrigation Costs of
Side Roll, Center Pivot and Low Pressure Center Pivot for Diesel
and Electric Power, Reno, Nevada: University of Nevada, Reno,
Division of Agricultural and Resource Economics (in press) .
TABLE 10
Prices Received for Crops in Nevada, 1974-1978
Average
Crop
1978
1977
1976
1975
1974
1976-1978
Alfalfa Hay *($/ton)
57
67
71
59
64
65
Alfalfa Seed ($/lb.)
135
125
110.
77
97
123
Wheat ($/bu.)
3.34
2.62
2.87
3.06
3.67
2.94
Barley ($/bu.)
2.02
1.95
2.45
2.55
2.90
2.14
Potatoes ($/cwt)
3.00
2.90
2.35
3.15
2.55
2.75
*Based on a simple 12 month average.
Source: Nevada Crop and Livestock Reporting, Nevada Agricultural
Statistics, 1977; and "Crop Production, 1978 Annual Summary".
25
Table 11
COSTS AND RETURNS FOR ALFALFA - 3 CUTTINGS
USING THREE YEAR AVERAGE PRICES, 1976-1978
YIELDS
HIGH MEDIUM LOW
ALFALFA - 3 CUTTINGS
YIELDS - TONS PER ACRE
CENTER PIVOT -
2, 1500 GPM WE
LLS
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
411 .56
325.00
-86.56
-105.41
407,66
260.00
-147.^6
-166.51
403.76
1 9 5 . 00
-208.76
-227.6!
CENTER PIVOT -
3 000 GPM WELL
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
357.33
325.00
-32.33
-51.18
3b3.A3
260.00
-93.43
-1 12.28
349.53
1 95 . 00
-154.53
-173.38
SIDE ROLL - 2,
15 00 GPM WELLS
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
370.47
325.00
-45.47
-70.62
3 66.57
2 60.00
-106.57
-131 .72
362.67
1 95 . 00
- 1 67 . 67
-192.82
SIDE ROLL - 3 000 GPM WELL
TOTAL COSTS
I NCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
323.91
325.00
1 .09
-24.06
320.01
2 60.00
-60.01
-85.16
31 6. 1 1
1 95 . 00
-121 .1]
-146.26
SURFACE - 2, 1500 GPM WELLS
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
3\3.34
325.00
11 .66
-1 6.86
309.44
2 60.00
-A9.&4
-77.96
305.54
195.00
-1 10.54
-139.06
SURFACE - 3000
GPM WELL
TOTAL COSTS
I NCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
259.35
325.00
65.65
37.13
255.45
2 60.00
4 . 55
-23.97
251 .55
1 95 . 00
-56.55
-85.07
26
Table 12
COSTS AND RETURNS FOR ALFALFA - 2 CUTTINGS
USING THREE YEAR AVERAGE PRICES, 1976-1978
YIELDS
HIGH MEDIUM LOW
ALFALFA - 2 CUTTINGS
YIELDS - TONS PER ACRE
CENTER PIVOT -
2, 1500 GPM WELLS
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
358.10
195.00
-163.10
-178.17
354.20
130.00
-224.20
-239.27
350.30
65.00
-285.30
-300.37
CENTER PIVOT -
3 000 GPM WELL
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
31 4.40
19 5.00
-119.40
-134.47
310.50
130.00
-180.50
-195.57
306.60
65.00
-241 .60
-256.67
SIDE ROLL - 2,
1 500 GPM WELLS
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET. RETURN
LABOR)
320.84
195.00
-125.84
-147.21
31 6.94
130.00
-186.94
-208.31
313.04
65.00
-248.04
-2 69 . ^ 1
SIDE ROLL - 3 000 GPM WELL
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
282.90
195.00
-87.90
-109.27
279.00
1 30 . 00
- 1 49 . 00
-170.37
275.10
6 5.00
-210.10
-231 .47
SURFACE - 2, 15 00 GPM WELLS
TOTAL COSTS
I NCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
267.54
195.00
-72.54
-93.1 9
263.64
130.00
_ i .23 . 64
-1 54.29
259. 7^
65.00
-215.39
■ SURFACE - 3000
GPM WELL **
\
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
220.26
195.00
-25.26
-45.91
216.36
130.00
-86.36
-107.01
212.46
65.00
-1 47.^6
-1 68. 1 1
/■.
Table 13
COSTS AND RETURNS FOR SPRING WHEAT
USING THREE YEAR AVERAGE PRICES, 1976-1978
YIELDS
HIGH MEDIUM LOW
SPRING WHEAT
YIELDS - BU. PER ACRE 80 60 40
CENTER PIVOT -
2, 1 tOO GPM WELLS
TOTAL COST
I NCOME
RETUHN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
398. 1 1
235.20
- 1 62 . 9 1
- 1 80 . 9 1
398. 11
176.40
-221 .71
-239.71
398. 1 1
1 1 7 . 60
-280.51
-298.51
CENTER PIVOT -
3 000 GPM WELL
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
3 50.59
235.20
-11 5.39
-133.39
350.59
176.40
-174.19
-192.19
350.59
117.60
-232.99
-250.99
SIDE ROLL - 2,
1500 GPM WELLS'
•
TOTAL COST
I NCOME *
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
3 59 . 1 4
235.20
-123.94 •
-148.23
359.14
176.40
-182.74
-207.03
359.1 4
1 1 7 . 60
-24J .54
-265.83
SIDE ROLL - 3 000 GPM WELL
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
318.05
235.20
-82.85
-107.1 4
318.05
176.40
-1 41 .65
-165.94
31 8.05
1 1 7 . 60
-200.45
-224.74
SURFACE - 2, 15 00 GPM WELLS
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
303.59
235.20
-68.39
-95.56
303 . 59
176.40
-127.19
-154.36
303.59
117.60
-185.99
-213.16
SURFACE - 3 000
GPM WELL
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
253.87
235.20
-18.67
-45.84
253.87
176.40
-77.47
-104.64
253.87
1 17.60
-136.27
-163.44
Table 14
COSTS AND RETURNS FOR POTATOES
USING THREE YEAR AVERAGE PRICES, 1976-1978
YIELDS
HIGH MEDIUM LOW
POTATOES
YIELDS - CWT. PER ACRE
\
400
325
275
CENTER PIVOT - 2, 1500 GPM WELLS
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH LABOR)
NET RETURN
1063.31
1 100.00
3 6.69
19.41
1063.31
893.75
-169.56
-186.84
1063.31
756.25
-307.06
-324.34
CENTER PIVOT - 3000 GPM WELL
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH LABOR)
NET RETURN
1027.90
1 1 00 . 00
72.10
54.82
1027.90
893.75
-134.15
-1 51 .A3
1027.90
756.25
-271 .65
-288.93
SIDE ROLL - 2, 1500 GPM WELLS
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH LABOR)
NET RETURN
1028.74
1 1 00 . 00
71 .26
47.68
1028.74
893.75
-134.99
-1 58.57
1028.7 4
756.25
-272.49
-296.07
SIDE ROLL - 3 000 GPM WELL
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH LABOR)
NET RETURN
997.57
1 1 00 . 00
102.43
78.8 5
997.57
893.75
-103.82
-127.40
997 . 57
756.25
-241 .32
-264.90
SURFACE - 2, 1500 GPM WELLS
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH LABOR)
NET RETURN
977.60
1 1 00 . 00
122.40
94.32
977.60
893.75
-83.85
-1 11 .93
9 77 . 60
756.25
-221 .35
-249.43
SURFACE - 3 000 GPM WELL
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH LABOR)
NET RETURN
93 5.60
1 1 00 . 00
164.40
136.32
935.60
893.75
-41 .85
-69.93
935.60
756.25
-179.35
-207.43
29
Table 15
COSTS AND RETURNS FOR ALFALFA SEED
USING THREE YEAR AVERAGE PRICES, 1976-1978
Y I ELDS
HIGH MEDIUM LOW
ALFALFA SEED
YIELDS - CWT. PER ACRE
CENTER PIVOT - 2, I £00 GPM WELLS
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET. RETURN
LABOR)
597.64
6 1 5 . 00
17.36
11 .83
597 .64
492.00
-105.64
-111.17
597.64
3 69 . 00
-228.64
-234.17
CENTER PIVOT -
3000 GPM WELL
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
5t\ .98
6 I 5 . 00
63.02
57.49
551 .98
492.00
-59.93
-65.51
55! .98
3 69 . 00
-182.98
-1 88.51
SIDE ROLL - 2,
1 500 GPM WELLS
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR )
559.35
6 1 5 . 00
5:5.65
43.82
559.35
492.00
-67.35
-79.18
559.35
3 69 . 00
-190.35
-202.18
SIDE ROLL - 3 000 GPM WELL
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
519.78
6 1 5 . 00
95.22
83.39
519.78
492.00
-27.78
-39.61
£19.78
3 69 . 00
-150.78
-1 62.61
SURFACE - 2, 15 00 GPM WELLS
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR )
504.47
615.00
J 1 0 . 53
98.79
504.47
492.00
-12.47
-24.21
504.47
3 69 . 00
-135.47
-147.21
SURFACE - 3000
GPM WELL
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR) <'
455.93
61 5.00
1 59.07
147.33
455.93
492.00
36.07
24.33
455.93
3 69 . 00
-86.93
-98.67
sn
TABLE 16
Rotation Systems
Average Annual Net Returns
(Based on 1976-1978 Average Prices)
Irrigation System
Yield
3 Year Wheat
7 Year Alfalfa Seed
3 Year Wheat
7 Year Potatoes
3 Year Wheat
7 Year Alfalfa Hay
Two, 1,500 GPM Wells
Center Pivot (260 acres)
High Yield
Medium Yield
Low Yield
■$ 9,547
$36,520
■$63,492
■$ 6,029
■$48,153
-$77,765
-$28,461
-$44,168
-$59,874
Side Roll (304 acres)
High Yield
Medium Yield
Low Yield
$ 539
-$30,998
-$62,535
$ 3,860
-$45,392
-$80,014
-$20,981
-$39,344
-$57,708
Surface (315 acres)
High Yield
Medium Yield
Low Yield
$17,909
-$14,769
-$47,447
$20,526
-$30,508
-$66,368
-$ 3,892
-$22,921
-$41,950
3,000 GPM Well
Center Pivot (260 acres)
High Yield
Medium Yield
Low Yield
$ 2,469
-$24,503
-$51,476
$ 4,122
-$3S,002
-$67,614
-$14,884
-$30,591
-$46,298
Side Roll (304 acres)
High Yield
Medium Yield
Low Yield
$12,707
-$18,830
-$50,367
$14,241
-$35,011
-$69,634
-$ 7,324
-$25,689
-$44,053
Surface (315 acres)
High Yield
Medium Yield
Low Yield
$33,311
$ 633
-$32,046
$34,486
-$16,549
-$52,424
$12,712
-$ 6,317
-$25,347
Trends in Faming in Nevada
1940 - 1974
Acres
11,000,000
10,000,000
9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
Numbe.
3600
1940
194S
1S50
195S 1959
Years
1964
1969
1974
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1974 Census of Agriculture, Nevada State and County Data,
Vol'. I, Part 28, 1977, p. 1-1.
32
ILLUSTRAION 2
Variations in Average Net Farm Income, 1970-1977
30000
25000 ------
20000
15000
10000
5000
1970
1971
1972
Source :
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977
Nevada Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Nevada Agricultural Statistics, 1977 (and various years
Net Income By Yield - .Alfalfa
■Si DO
CENTER PIVOT; \
•$100
-S200
-S3O0
34
■
ILLUSTRATION 4
Net Income By Yield - Spring Wheat
S200
S100
o
-$100
-S200
i i ! ' !
if;! 1
1 ;
l 1 | | i | |
I
i ;
i ■
_4_j Mi
i :
i 1
-Il_-
- 1 1 1 1 :
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
j 1
hh i
X
+4
1
'MM
i i
1 1 •
1 1 '
i
i : l
1 1 1 ( j
i
-rr
Hi Hi
H^-
TM^
—
MM
i 1 1
i ; ',
1 1
! i
i
II
[
1 1 1
\
i
. i ,
H '
i i ' 1 i i
1
f i 1
— r"1 — l — —
lil
1 ; ! ! i i
'"j 'Mi!
ft 1 ! 1 1
Ml
i
i
i
MM ■
i
i 1 i
r
1
I 1 : i j j
[
,
I , i
i
'iii
i
I
1 I 1 I 1 j
i
1 1 ! I f| i | i
i
■
! I ! j
.
1 i
i i i
; i
, [
iii i
iij ! ' '■
I i
I i ;
ill 1
j-!
III!
|
Ill'
III]
i
-i I
i i ' M
I !
Ml
| 1 1 I 1 I !
i 1
MM
1 i
1
■i4-j
I
i j t
i : ; : ' ' 1 i
1 1
i
1 i I ; 1
'it I l ' l
i I :
1
1 ' 1 ■ i
i
I'll
1
! 1111
I
MM i 1
! "T
i i
! i ■ i ■ |
i
1 !
;
I ;
i i
i
Ml !
i
lilt
I
1 '
i l
i i
1 i
i ' ]
II
i
1
i ! i i "' !
I 1
Mill
I i
i !
i
Ml
i 1 1
i
i i
i 1
1 11 i
! ;
Mill
i
-^
i 1 |
■
i
-Mi
II
i
.
III
i '
, ■ 1 r t
Mi
1 III:
! ! I i : ■ ; ,
i'1 !
i [
I'l I'M
ill
! ! "I
1 II,
i
1 ill
! "
1 i 1 ' i
I j
; |
"T 1 1 J 1
■ j ! ! 1
1 ' '
I i
1
1 1 1 I I*M 1 1
! 1 I
'
i I i r
:
1
i
. 1
M ' ■
i !
II l lil 1 1
M 'l
-j
,
ii
:
! ' ■
i i [ i
l
1 l
1 i
1 M II Iij
1 i ! i 111 II
M
1 j : 1
iii
'
■ . :
I !
i ' i
I M t 1
; | ■
1 | ] 1
i i . i . 1
I'll
| | , f. i ,.,..
1 !
! i !
'i ii
MM
i :
L i ! i i i
i i ! i :
I ! i M | | |
till::!'
i [ i i
I'll
i
; i ■ ■
. : ■ I I I . i
1 1" i
I M i :
! 1 1 i , , , ' |
;
II ;
I ! ' l|' I 1
| 1 , ' ■ 1 ' 1
1 : ■
1 1 ; ;
II , . :
' I ' M
i
' | | " " |
I YIELD
. ' ' ■
' ' '1
STATE AVERAG
Mill l ■ ;
' i }"'"! j ■ !
1 '
|- r
1 ' ! j 1
;l
M ''Ml
1 i j | i j
j i
:
i M i
M i 1 1 1 M
1 M 1 1 1 ! !
1 1 .
1
1 ! ill
;ii M
, ,
■
i i i )*> \ i i
i i | , i ! i
1 i M M !
—
1 ; |
1 ' ' 1
i 1 "■ '
j l i ; i ; i i
i 1
lii;
: i i
i Mi i ' '
1
1 1 !, 1 I I 1 '
(Mi M
1 I
; i i
1 i
: i i , : i : i -
lilii
1 I I i IJ:
1 '
;i| i | .,..■■ i
4
II
RD
fin ;
i 1 ! 1 1 ; i i
J ■ i | ; :
1 | ■ ,
1 ! i 1
: , ,
ill,'!
' ll
■ 1 1 I I i
■pi'
I ( BU./ACRi
I ■ ■ ■ ■ :
: i M | ' M 1
1 !
1 . ' ■ | ' ;
■ ; M
i ■
, i..,, r. t..i, *...,....
1
■ i i
L.U, I j
! ■' ! ! ! i | i ■
! | | i 111 i |
' J |
i .
Ml ! 1 -i !
i, ,).; i ,,, |
t i i 1 | |
1 1 1 1 1 , ,
1 1 ! I'l I I 1
1
ill
1 | ' i 1 1 I !
I I M M 1
i ! | 1 : i i I
; ■ ■ ■ ■ I i !
! ; i ) i ! m i
, ; I • ■
1 1
Mi
1 j i | 1 j | , .
i i ' i ' : 1 ' !
1 1 t | |
; ; ■ : it i ■
h
1 i 1 1
1 j j ( [ 'Ml
' 1 1
j 1 ! i 1 ; ] 1
M M M
M ■ ; |
■ j ; i i I — i— ^
1 ' _!;:!:
' ' I :
1 ' ! ! ; : , '
j
1 i ' :
| ! ■ i i — rn~
: ; | i ' ; , ■
H-j-^ II | ■ i
1 i \ ■ i 1
— TT
v#*
SURFACE I
i i
■ j ! ' : ! j
i ■ i 1 ' | ' i
mm: ;
, I
| 1 1 , 1 jj^
-f~
44—
. I ! , i
! j
' ' f M i 1 M
1 j i II
lii j*r
! 1 | j i i |
' ' 1
| ; : ! !
: ■ M ] II
i I'll
II m !
i » ■
■ i 1
i.i , . ,
1 1 1 i Ml
\Jr^, :
1 1
iij i
i i . Mill
i ! '
' I II !
1 1 h
LT-| ! ! ' M : '
; j
i i
1 1 ' 1 j 1
j
i M ' i ' l i>
1 i ' i
1
.. 1
1 i ;
i ! j ' ' ! ! ; ■
— — i i i ... 1
1 i
M M II' M '
'^r
Ml | !
! ! : ' i
1 1 .
! i
■ j
; ! I
| { i I i I ! j
Mm — L
^M-
.... . . ! II; ;
t i 1 i ll i l i ■
: v^ii 1 1
M j , I I |
1 1 :
, 1 .i.
,
i l ! ; I . : : i
_. — ,— , — •__
ii| i
T^
hi i»; l i j
>-fjj I ! ]■
I'M'-H **
1 ! ll ! i |
■I 1 i
Ill ; L.
! i ' ! p i ; ! I
i l lit J '_>
t 1 >^
SIDE ROLL
i j I ! | ; j i
1 !
1,1 \t^*^
1 i I ! i M i i i , . ^r ■
; i -
\\^*^'
I ^^^
T~' i i | 1 . I :
i i i
i . i i i i i
^ ! |
i 1 '
i j>*M| '
^^
>^ ■ ll i
1 ' 1^
i , 1 i : | j ■
' '
,*
i : ' jfir'
—
1 ' 11 ' '
j3r'\ i
Jr, i
CENTER PIVu i
S< . H-f
r^M ■ i
y*\ ' 1 ' — r~ p- — | —
: l ' \'~ij*
<- j ; ; i ; i ' i
" >^
— i — \ — U_U-i ! 1 1— _
' i j | • | i | '
i ,
1
■
1
■y^
^J*j
.
ir
: ' ' , ■ , ! ,
II JjS
.V^i — ' ' — }
-i T" 1
vT
; : ■
j*r\ 'J/*' "
,
*** i >^ i ' i"'
i i ' i ■
: : M ■ ' ; : >* I '■ J-*"*"" ' 1 [,
I ^r
ii
>^7
if
, ,, . j
j^
II .
y^"
ii
1
—-^L j , __^_
. '
.. i
i
:
—
i
JO
ILLUSTRATION 5
Net Income By Yield - Potatoes
S300
36
ILLUSTRATION 6
Net Income By Yield - Alfalfa Seed
I
j i i - |
1 M l !
III '
j
! M i
I
i i
1 1
Mil
., , ..
... . ..
i
_[-' i !
| j I
— -i
!
1
1 1
: |
1
i I 1
j
i I
i ;
I i
|
1 1
1 1
i 1
i [
i u
i i 1 1 i 1
i
i
i
t
1 1
i 1
| |
i i i I
j
i
1
i
I 1 1 1 1 1 |
i
...
; i
i i
1
1 i
i i i i
i
i
'
i
| l|
i
I
|
1 |
1
i I ' I i
i
i
i
1 II j ! ! | ||
\
j ;
> !
1
1
i
I i 1
1 1
1
i 1 1
11 !
J
1
1
i
1 ;
i !
1 1 1
!
— j.
I
j
MM
1 i
i i i j :
i
1
i . .
$400
1
1
1 | 1 1 !
j 1
| |
I
! l 1
i
1
■ ■
1 1 it
1 1 1 1 l 1 1
1
1 ! i l'"t"l 1 I 1
i i
.
i ;
i
i
I |
I
1
|
i
| 1 1 1
| <
1 1
, i
i
1 | !
i
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 |
i
i
I ' I i
| | ;
I 1 l
■ i
i
i
1 1 j
i
1 ' 1
i
l i
i i
i
i
i !
1 !
1 j i i !
M 1 1 | 1 I |
ii hi
i
!
i i i
1 i i ! !
1
1 || 1
ti
i
1 I
! 1
ill1'
mm!
11
| |
! I i
i
i
1
i 1 j
! | | i j 1 j I t
[ j
i
\ 1 i 1 1 1 | i
>
i i
1 M
III!
I'M
i i
i i
| 1 1 J 1 | j |
1 l
III
i
$300
LI..I.J
1 i
Ml I
\ 1 1
| 1 | ; | I
i
1 1
ill I ! 1
i
1 1
I
I'll MM
i ' \~1 !
1
i |
1
I I I t I ! I I
l I M 1
i 1 : . i ii
|
;
1 1 I i 1
i
! ! !
Mil
1 ; i . , ■ i j
til
| i
| II | j I
i
l|
Mil
! I ■ : ; i I
: ■ . i M
'
.' M ' M '
URFACE
j i
[III
lit i i i !
1 i ' ' i j
j STATh AVE!
III! MM
! i i , ■ ■ ! ! '
i ■ i i i j
i i ■ i t i i i
|IM
1 1 j j 1 ; j .; ;
i > I!
i i
lilt!
i ; iM i at i
1 {
1 ! 1 ! 1 1" ! 1
1 1 1 1 ' j
i 1 : I 1 i ! i j
■ . i l i * ' ;
i |
Ml*!
M l ■ : 1
i
|||
1 : 1 1 M . 1 1
Ml ; i i ;
i » . i i i * i
1 1 1 1 II |
I
iiii
1 1 !
/
■ l i
i i
^?nn
M ! ; M
,.','•'■
; ■
Mi i
i : 'Jf i
M M M
M | 1 I
■ i ; :
! ■ * > i
. i i 1 1 1 M
f '
i i M
I j I'l. ' II ! 1
1 r ! j'
SIDE ROLL
. 1 1 i j M | ,
MM M
1 ' [/ / 1
I), |H
; |
it
! | 1 1 Ml
1 i i
|
i !
MM
i jf - \J ■
: i ' 1 i
M !
: j 1 j
1 j
iiii
ill!
ill
, I !
: 1 ■
| 1
\f ! ; /\ /
1
1
1 t !
[I 1 ■ J | | !
' i 1 ' !
; j 1 1 1 | |
ii.
/ 1/1 1 Jri
' 1
i
'i '
i !
1 i ' : !
lii « i ;
j i
1 ! ' ' \a
f\ l : / \ / !
S100
' '
i i
| 1
/ /
:enter pivd"
: ' 1 1
1 : ' : 1 : i , '
: ' ' . 1 : I
i i /
I ■
ii/
\ Jr i j JF |
i '
i .
1 > ' M
III1
.
i / ■ i
irt ' at' ■■
[ ] 1 1 ' ]
' 1 1 '
■■ I : i i
' !
■:
1/ 1 M
f r W 1
I ' i M
1 ■ :
' | M ! {
1 ; , ! ! ; !
1 1 1 I j 1
T\F\ \ 1 ii
l/ :
1 !
! I
i ' ■
1
t | /, ! i |/
1 ■ 1
1 i
1
III! II
'■'■■':. 1 ; ■ ' i ;
! M
* ■ [yr i i ' jr \
JFt i !
i i
i i : i : i i i i , - i j u
1 [ ■ 11
/ii;/ 1,
r ' j | { i
III.
T^T"^ ^TT
| i II 1 M j
i 1 , 1 M | ' 1 1 ■ !
1 i 1 M
| I ! j 1
YIELD CCWT./ACRE
o
1 1
■
3 "
1
r H—
1 I ! ; j 1 i , ■ ■ : 2 Mm:
'til/
4
\/\ \f. 5 1 1 ! ' i b
i ;
, : . | 1 j ; 1 ,
1 f | | ! 1 ( 1 !
i 1 i ; 1 i !/ i/ii/m
I i | M i |
I 1 Mm
1 , j ! ' ' i
: it'll! ' ]
: i : 1 1 M |
1 .
! 1 i M ! j , |
Jr '
M , i i I M j
> ! | i •: ' 1 | |
: i ■ i ;
III III
Jr \
AT 1 \at\ M ' 1 1
1 i I i I ■ M ! i
1 i i |
i i
1 i ' : !
w ' 1 \'j
ry If M 1
; ■ . I i :
i
hi j j j
i ■ ,
1 m
/ 1 /
lll||
MUM
| ! ) , , 1
: i . I . ,
1 ; 1 j 1 1 ! | 1
Mi' [III
1 ' ' r "
jf y \
f \ II j 1
1 ! i ' | ' i !
! i i
I i
$1U(J
i 1 M
! \ 1 . ; ■!
i jr . \Jt . '\f
\ iTTTm f • 1
j i i
I
- 1 1
i ' ! 1 1 ! 1
: ! !
: i j | 1
1 1 !
1 , : i 1 | ]
i 111
/. i jf\ \jr i
i 1 l I 1 i
| 1
i
l i :
i p |i
. : Jr I ' Y \
! ;
i ! | 1 1 i _|
1 1
i
1 1 1 1 ' 1 '
1 i ; ! i i 1 /
■ if: ' jjr]
; 1 |
1 I I 1
1 ' ' 1 | i |
1 ■ i
1 1 1 I ' 1 | 1
II '■ ! 1 ■
1 ; ' ; [jf\
\* r i ' i
■ 1 i J I 1 i
1 M | | ! I 1
I'll'
']/'■■/ 1
ill]
i
/ '' ]f ' ' i ! ■
[ j ; | ■ I :
ill
.'II1'!
1 ;
i i : i ■ |
\at - - y1
/ '
■ ■ : ; i
S200
■ ; i i ■
1 | ' M M M
i i ,i
/l I vAf, 1
I , j
lil,
! i ! I i ■ : '
1
' ' r\" t" ' / \4
/ I
M ; i 1 ! ! !
|l] !
1 . . . ; '
\f ' i ' / i /
i l M j i ' - ,
. ; j | ' ■
1
i
■ \ III,.
1 !
i
1 i i ! M 1 !
1 i .
'Mi; m
!
i ■ ,
\y~, u^
■
1 j |
II i i i
\Af ' sf
i
'■ i i ! i ' i ! ;
i i
i
■ : i
• <
.
SoOO
1 : ■ 1 '
t
T~
.
' ' ! i 1 ' !
/ w\ w ;
i
' : '
i i . I : ,
■ l i
r i/
t
:
' i i ■
, ' !
r uk
I
■ i i
I M M
/ y a
■ i
1 1 i
AY jr jr
■ ;
■
M M j I '
f / /
' ■
]/ \r x
■f r
; i ■ i ■ ■ ;
jf Jr
i ■ i
, ■ ■ i
S400
r r
| 1 ] !
iiii
r Jr
. i
W •r
' ,
■
! i
: i -1 i ' ■ ■ r
3"
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1 . American Association for Vocational Instructional Materials In
Cooperation with U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service. Planning for an Irrigation System. Athens, Georgia: En-
gineering Center, 1971.
2. Arobio, Edward L. ; Christensen, R.L.; and Ching, C.T.K. A Man-
ual for Constructing Budgets for Agricultural Enterprises. Reno,
Nevada: University of Nevada, Division of Agricultural and Resource
Economics, Max C. Fleischmann College of Agriculture, MSC4, 1976.
3. Cords, H.P. Barley and Wheat in Nevada. Reno, Nevada: Univer-
sity of Nevada, Agricultural Experiment Station, Max C. Fleischmann
College of Agriculture, B28, January 1971.
4. Dvoskin, Dan, and Heady, Earl 0. Energy Requirements of Irriga-
ted Crops in the Western United States. Ames, Iowa: The Center
for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, Mis-
cellaneous Report, 1976.
5. Garrett, James R.; Champney, William 0.; Meyer, Fred; Torell,
Allen; and Ching, C.T.K. "Economic Effects of Developing Desert
Land Entry Land on Ranching Operations, Northeastern Nevada, De-
partment of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Max C. Fleisch-
mann College of Agriculture, 1979. (Mimeograph)
6. Hibbard, Benjamin Horace. A History of The Public Land Policies.
Madison and Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin Press, 1965.
7. Meyer, Fred; Myer, Gordon; and Shane, Ronald. Irrigation Costs
of Side Roll, Center Pivot and Low Pressure Center Pivot for Diesel
and Electric Power. Reno, Nevada: Cooperative Extension Service
(in press) .
8. Myer, Gordon; Greenwell, Don; and Stockton, Lloyd. "Alfalfa
Hay Production Costs for Lovelock, Nevada Area". Reno, Nevada:
University of Nevada, Division of Agricultural and Resource Economics,
Max C. Fleischmann College of Agriculture, 1979. (Mimeograph).
9. Myer, Gordon; Greenwell, Don; and Stockton, Lloyd. "Alfalfa
Seed Production Costs for Lovelock, Nevada Area". Reno, Nevada:
University of Nevada, Division of Agricultural and Resource Econo-
mics, Max C. Fleischmann College of Agriculture, 1979. (Mimeograph)
10. Myer, Gordon; Greenwell, Don; and Stockton, Lloyd. "Wheat Pro-
duction Costs for Lovelock, Nevada Area". Reno Nevada: University
of Nevada, Division of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Max C.
Fleischmann College of Agriculture, 1979. (Mimeograph)
11. Myer, Gordon; Radtke, Hans, D; and Ching, C.T.K. Cost and Returns
oi Agricultural Production on Carey Act Lands in Nevada. uono . Nevada:
Cooper.", ti^c E.'t^nsion Service, CJ.u2, 1977.
12. Myer, Gordon; Stockton, Lloyd; and Sakurada , Ken. "Potatoe Production
Costs for the Winnemucca, Nevada Area." Reno, Nevada: University of Neva-
da, Division of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Max C. Fleischmann
College of Agriculture, >979 (Mimeograph).
13. Nevada Crop and Livestock Reporting Service: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economics, Statistics and Cooperative Service, cooperating
with Division of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of
Nevada and Nevada State Department of Agriculture. "Crop Production -
1978 Annual Summary.", 1979.
14. Nevada Crop and Livestock Reporting Service: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economics, Statistics, and Cooperative Service cooperating
with Division of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Ne-
vada and Nevada State Department of Agriculture. Nevada Agricultural
Statistics. 1970-1978.
15. State of Nevada; Nevada Division of State Lands. "Carey Act Re-
port, State of Nevada, July 1, 1976-June 20, 1978." 1978 (Mimeograph)
16. State of Nevada, State Engineers Office and University of Nevada,
Reno, Division of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Water For Ne-
vada; Forecasts for the Future - Agriculture. Report No. 8, January 1974.
17. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics 1978.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978.
18. U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Public Domain of Nevada and
Factors Affecting its Use, by E.O. Wooton. Technical Bulletin No. 301.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1932.
19. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Resource Development Economics
Division, Economic Research Service. The Desert Land Act in Mid-
Twentieth Century, by Clyde E. Stewart. ERS-151, 1963.
20. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1974 Census
of Agriculture, State and County Data (various states) . Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977.
21. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. "Agri-
cultural Land Law Effectiveness Study." Interim Report. 1963. (Mimeograph)
22. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Nevada
Land Office "Desert Land Activity in Nevada; 1950 to 1965." 1965. (Mimeograph)
23. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management , Nevada
State Office. Agricultural Potential in Nevada- n.d. (Mimeograph)
39
24. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Nevada
State Office. "Agricultural Potential of National Resource Lands in
the State of Nevada, by BRI Systems, Inc. YA-512-CT6-164 ■ 2 Vols.
September 50, 1976.
25. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Managment , Nevada
State Office. "Agricultural Potential of Public Lands in the State of
Nevada." 1972. (Mimeograph)
26. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Managment, Nevada
State Office. "Procedure and Source Materials for Identification of
Public Lands Suitable for Agricultural Development in Nevada" by Watkins
W. Miller and C.T.K. Ching. 1975 (Mimeograph)
27. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific
Regional Office. Farm Budget Summary Computer Printout, 1978.
28. Wright, N. Gene; Barmettler, Edmund R. ; Stubblefield, Thomas M. ; and
Swop, Daniel A. Costs of Producing Crops in the Irrigated Southwest, Part
Hi ~.,.!leXarigL- Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona, Department of Ag-
ricultural Experiment Station, Technical Bulletin 217, 1975.
40
APPENDIX A
CROP BUDGETS
41
alfalfa - 3 cuttings
center pivot - 260 acres
2, 1500 gp:.: wells
COST
PER ACRE TOTAL
VALUE VALUE
■■jAUAOn 3.27 RSO
WEED k IMSEST CONTkOL Ir.R/ <9fl<S
SWATH 3X )| .64 3026
JA-T..= -'X 29.33 7626
HAUL K STACK 3X 15.68 *077
HAKE JX 2.28 593
IRRIGATION CF'JHLt rtEH-Urf, MAi MTE WNCS) 13^.24 3M 63
GENERAL OVEkHEAD (53 OF- VARIABLE COSTS) 10.71 2785
A.iO'-rnZED E: TACLiSHMENT COSTS 26. OL C773
TAXES ON LAM! ) 4.Q0 127 4
AMORTIZED LA MO >EV. A MO Iff'?. COST:- 1 M . 69 39439
roTAL CO ST £ a 07 . 66 1 0 h992
IHCOME'
* TOMS AT $6"i HFH TOM 240.00 62400
.^ETUkM to LA'Vi), LABOR, AMD MANAGEMENT -167.66 -43592
OPERATOR'S LAo()< ( *.W Hrf. AT S4.o0 H'R . ) 18.8b ^900
RETURN FO LA-L,) a 'J ; -MANAGEMENT -186. bl -4P^93
JOTE - BASED ON P •fHLlAilNAHY BUDGETS DOVFLOKEU LiY JNIVEPSITY OF NEVADA,
DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS
42
ALFALFA - 3 CUTTINGS
SI OF HULL - 3 04 ACRES
2, I 500 GPM WELLS
PER ACRE TOTAI
VALUE VALUE
:osts
HARROW
MHisD K INS-CT CONTROL iA q7
SWATH 3X
3.2/ 994
51 28
BALc 3X
HAUL * STACK 3X lV.6*
Vi 64 35.19
29 .33 RQ 1 6
RA K H 3 X p -j q
fDTAL COSTS
4767
693
IRRIGATION (FUEL, REPAIR, MAINTENANCE) 115 ah 3.Kp
GENERAL OVERHEAD (5% OF VARIABLE COSTS) 9 71 ' ?0uR
AMORTIZED ESTABLISHMENT COSTS 26*05 7910
TAXES ON LAND 4[9n '
UIOkTTZED LAND F)FV. AND I PR. COSTS |3| M 39^7
3 66.5/ IIU39
IN/CO ME
<■ TON'S AT SCO PEk TON 240. DO 72960
RETURN TO LAND, LABOR, AND MANAGEMENT -126.5/ -38479
OPERATOR'S LABOR ( f . 59 Hk. AT S4.50 HR . ) 25.15 7^5
RETURN TO LAND AND MANAGEMENT -151.72 -1612^
NOTE - BASED ON PRELIMINARY BUDGETS DEVELOPED BY UNIVERSITY OF M-VADA
DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS
ALFALFA - 3 CUTTINGS
SURFACE - 3 15 ACHES
2, 15 00 3PM KEIXS
;osrs
Jt^ATH 3X
PFR ACtiE TOTAL
VAU'E VALUE
! IA ^h'Orl 3 "> /
WE-:.' •» i NSEOT CONTROL I ft*H7
i I . f*
3 ALE 3X ->^, -^
MAUL '. STACK 3X |"s*6R
RAKE 3X 2"2H
IRRIGATION (FUEL, REPAIR, tAINTENAMCE) HB*.3rt
g GENERAL OVERHEAD (5'i OF VARIAHJ-" COSTS) 8*7
AMORTIZED E:TaJL1FM,RHT UUS7S 2<">V
TAXES ON LAND '„ *on
AMORTIZED LAN.; DEV. AN!! JR*. COSTS | 02 *^
rOTAL COST! 309. /M
J \fvf).4E
-1 TONS AT $.>0 |>ER TON 2*0.00
1030
h 3 | 1
3 <* ft /
9239
1939
71 3
27532.
.."5 37
H20f-
1543
323': 7
974 73
Y'-.'iOO
icTUllH TO LA>ID, LAHOH, AMI) MANAGEMENT ~(9.** -21373
OPERATOR'S I.A.iOR ( (.34 MR. AT S*.bO OR.) 28.5? 89H3
fETURN TO LAND Aiii * MANAGEMENT -97.96 -30356
NOTE - BASED ON PRELIMINARY BUDGETS DEVELOPED BY UNIVERSITY OF NFVADA,
DIVISION !)F AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS
ALFALFA - 2 CUTTINGS
CENTER PIVOT - 260 ACRES
2, 1500 GPM WELLS
COSTS
HARROW
rfEcD A INSECT CONTROL
SWATH 2X
BALE 2X
HAUL i STACK 2X
HAKE 2X
IRRIGATION (FUEL, RERAlK, MAINTENANCE)
GENERAL OVERHEAD (5% OF V Ay I A Si F COSTS)
AMORTIZED ESTABLISHMENT COSTS
TAXES ,)N LAND
AMORTIZED LAND DEV. AND I RH., COSTS
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
2 TOMS AT SfO iJEK TON
JETURN To LAND, LABOR, A NO MANAGEMENT
OPERATOR'S LA.-jOk ( 3.35 HR. A"!~ $4.50 HR . )
RETURN TO LAN '3 A NO MANAGEMENT
HER ACRE
VALUE
2.36
1 e.87
7.76
13.84
I .52
11 1 . 52
8.54
2 6.0b
4.90
151 .69
3 62 . 00
120.00
-242.60
1 L.07
-257.07
TOTAL
VALUE
614
^386
201 8
4407
3 598
395
2R995
2220
^773
1 27-fl
39439
94 120
31200
-^2920
30 18
-668 38
MOTE - ttASED ON PRELIMINARY .jJ'Wt'TJ DEVELOPED HV UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA
DIVISION OH AGRICULTURAL A No hESOUh'CE ECONOMICS
4 5
ALFALFA - 2 CUTTINGS
SIDE ROLL - 304 ACRES
2, I 500 GP.M WELLS
4i
COSTS
HARROW
IrfEED & INSECT CONTROL
SWATH 2X
BALE 2X
''A1JL ", STACK 2X
RAKE 2X
IRRIGATION (FUEL, REPAIR, MAINTENANCE)
GENERAL OVERHEAD ( b% OF VARIABLE COSTS)
AMORTIZED ESTABLISHMENT COSTS
TAXES ON LAND
AMORTIZEO LAND DEV . AND IRR. COSTS
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
2 TONS AT $60 PER TON
RETURN TO LAND, LABOR, AND MANAGEMENT
OPERATOR'S LABOR ( 4.75 HR . AT $4.50 HR. )
RETURN TO LAND AND MANAGEMENT
PER ACRE
TOTAL
VALUE
VALUE
2.36
717
16.87
5128
7.76
2359
16.95
5153
13.84
4207
i .52
A 62
95.61
290 <<6
7.74
2353
26.05
7919
4.90
J 490
131 .14
39867
324.74
907 22
120.00
36480
20^.74
-62242
21 .37
649 6
226. 11
-68738
NOTE - BASED ON PRELIMINARY BUDGETS DEVELOPED BY UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA,
DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS
ALFALFA - 2 CUTTINGS
SURFACE - 31 5 ACRES
2, 15 00 GPM WELLS
-4
COSTS
MARROW
WEED & INSECT CONTROL
SWATH 2X
BAvLE 2X
HAUL 8, STACK 2X
RAKE 2X
IRRIGATION (FUEL, REPAIR, MAINTENANCE)
GENERAL OVERHEAD (5% OF VARIABLE COSTS)
AMORTIZED ESTABLISHMENT COSTS
TAXES ON LAND
AMORTIZED LAND DEV. AND I RR. COSTS
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
2 TONS AT $60 PER TON
RETURN TO LAND, LABOR, AND MANAGEMENT
OPERATOR'S LABOR ( A . 59 HR. AT $4.50 HR . )
RETURN TO LAND AMD MANAGEMENT
PER ACRE
TOTAL
VALUE
VALUE
2.36
743
1 6.87
53 14
7.76
2444
16.95
5339
13.84
4360
1 .52
479
71 .94
22 660
6.56
2066
26.05
8206
4.90
1543
1 02 . 69
32347
271 .44
8 5502
1 20 . 00
37800
1 51 . <4
-4 7702
20.65
6504
172.09
-5^207
NOTE - BASED ON PRELIMINARY BUDGETS DEVELOPED BY UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA,
DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS
HN^n»Hi^BnHaBBamnB
POTATOES
CENTER PIVOT - 2 60 ACRES
2, 15 00 GPM WELLS
COSTS
DISC
PLOW
SMOOTHING
PLANTING
HARROW
HILL UP & FURROW
INSECT CONTROL
WEED CONTROL
DISEASE CONTROL
•FERTILIZER
SPROUT INHIBITOR
DEFOLIATE
ROLLER
HARVEST
HAUL
STORE
HIRED LABOR
IRRIGATION (FUEL, REPAIR, MAINTENANCE)
GENERAL OVERHEAD (5% OF VARIABLE COSTS)
INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL (12.5%)
TAXES ON LAND
AMORTIZED LAND DEV. AND IRR. COSTS
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
320 CWT. AT S3.00/CWT.
RETURN TO LAND, LABOR, AND MANAGEMENT
OPERATOR'S LABOR (3.34 HR. AT S4.50 HR . )
RETURN TO LAND AND MANAGEMENT
PER ACRE
TOTAL
VALUE
VALUE
5.36
139^
9.34
2428
3.30
358
207.17
53864
2.68
697
2.69
699
107.00
27820
11 .00
2860
13.00
338 n
•1 07 . 50
2-79 50
15.00
3900
10.50
2730
2.96
770
3^.07
8858
40.00
10400
11 8.1 6
30722
31 .14
8096
39. 7S
23342
^0.53
10538
53.73
13971
6.71
1745
1 51 .69
39439
1063.31
27<f461
960.00
249 600
103.31
-2686 1
17.28
^492
120.59
-313 54
NOTE - 3ASED ON
DIVISION
PRELIMINARY BUDGETS
OF AGRICULTURAL AND
DEVELOPED BY UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA,
RESOURCE ECONOMICS
48
u ■ »m»MMMM« rmaTOMnBr""""1"-'
POTATOES
■ SIDE ROLL
- 30^ ACRES
2 , 1 500
GPM WELLS
PER ACRE
TOTAL
VALUE
VALUE
COSTS
DISC
5.36
1629
PLOW
9.34
2339
SMOOTHING
3.30
1003
PLANTING
207.17
62980
HARROW
2. 68
81 5
HILL UP & FURROW
2.69
81 8
INSECT CONTROL
107.00
32528
WEED CONTROL
1 1 . 00
23*4
DISEASE CONTROL
13.00
39 52
FERTILIZER
107.50
32680
SPROUT INHIBITOR
15.00
15 fO
ncc;;[_y « fV
1 0 c^
««l « r\ *}
ROLLER
2.96
9 00
HARVEST
34.07
1 "357
HAUL
40.00
12160
STORE
118.1c
3 5921
HIRED LABOR
31 .14
9467
IRRIGATION (FUEL. REPAIR, MAINTENANCE)
77.21
23473
GENERAL OVERHEAD (5% OF VARIABLE COST*?)
30.00
12130
INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL (! 2.5-4)
L-2.91
1 6084.
TAXES ON LAND
6.71
2040
AMORTIZED LAND DEV. AMD I PR . COSTS
131 .14
39^67
TOTAL COSTS
1028.74
312738
INCOME
320 CWT. AT S3.00/CWT.
960.00
291 340
RETURN TO LAND, LABOk, AND MANAGEMENT
-68.74
-20898
OPERATOR'S LABOR ( 5.24 HR. AT S4.50 HR . )
23.58
7 168
RETURN TO LAND. AND MANAGEMENT
-92.32
-280 66
NOTE - BASED ON PRELIMINARY BUDGETS DEVELOPED
BY UNIVERSITY 0
F NEVADA,
DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE
ECONOMICS
49
. _.._-,. — . _
POTATOES
SURFACE - 315 ACRES
2, 1500 GPM WELLS
COSTS
DISC
PLOW
SMOOTHING
PLANTING
HA RROW
HILL UP & FURROW
INSECT CONTROL
'1EED CONTROL
DISEASE CONTROL
FERTILIZER
SPROUT INHIBITOR
DEFOLIATE
ROLLER
HARVEST
HAUL
HIRED LA30R
IRRIGATION (FUEL, REPAIR, MAINTENANCE)
GENERAL OVERHEAD (5% OF VARIABLE COSTS)
INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL (12.5%)
TAXES ON LAND
AMORTIZED land dev. and irr1. costs
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
320 CWT. AT S3.00/CWT.
RETURN TO LA WD, LABOR, MJD MANAGEMENT
OPERATOR'S LA30R ( 6,24 HH. AT $4.50 HR.)
RETURN TO LAND AND MANAGEMENT
PER ACRE
TOTAL
VALUE
VALUE
b.36
1 688
9.34
29^2
3.30
1040
207.17
652 59
2.63
8 44
2.69
3^7
1 07 . CO
33705
!! .00
3465
1 3 . 00
<3Q9£
107. 50
33863
! 5,00
^725
10.50
2308
2.9*
0*35
3 4." 07
1 0732
z0 . n0
126 00
II8.I0
37220
31 .14
93 09
56.88
17918
38.88
1 2247
5! ,57
K245
6.7 1
2 II A
1 02 . 69
32347
9 77 .60
30794 5
960.00
. 302400
- 1 7 . <*o
-8545
28.08
8845
-45 . 68
-1 ^390
"0TE " ^EDON PRELIMINA^ BUDGETS DEVELOPED BY UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA
DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS *-VADA,
50
WntN'j WHEAT
CENTER PIVOT - 5<n .
'" 260 ACRES
2, i eon GpM wells
COSTS
PI.O.-V
HARROW
'HSC 2X
UTILIZER
PLANTING
rt£EI) CONTROL
/NSLCf CONTROI
HARVEST
HAULING
{LIGATION (Hi,-| ,,,..pAM.
iNTERh.ST ON op-'-at.-T. A"'J ''',,: ' r >
r^ES ON LAND ' :A,MM| N ' )
*"WTIXt0 LANn liLV, r|||
TOTAL Coins
J NCOWE
"mm <"^. LABOR, ANOMANA^-o
^HRAfOR^ LABOR < , ^ ^
*'"'*"* T(> LAND ANU MANAGEMENT
'• '-n uu.)
'ER ACRE
VALUE
II .09
I .03
27.64
16./;.
-■'■ . I >0
iff. /:>
H. «>;
N E ■ . 4 /
10.80
I4.*i3
< . 90
"J I .tv;
I HI ,«jo
• " ? I f . (■■ |
in
-2 54.61
TOTAL
VALUE
2803
273
1784
7186
4 191
1040
I 62 b
1867
2337
10023
280R
37/8
1274
39439
I 03 b I 0
47190
~5<\320
4 680
-6 1000
N»"f'E - BASED ON PRPl mi*.*i ,
■ SPRING WHEAT
SIDE ROLL - 304 ACRES
2, 1500 GPM WEILS
to
COSTS
PLOW
HARROW
DISC 2X
FERTILIZER
PLANTING
WEED CONTROL
INSECT CONTROL
HARVEST
HAULING
IRRIGATION (FUEL, REPAIR, MAINTENANCE)
GENERAL OVERHEAD (5% OF VARIABLE COSTS)
INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL (12.5%)
TAXES ON LAND
AMORTIZED LAND DEV. AND IRR. COSTS
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
Lb BUSHELS AT S3.30/UU.
RETURN TO LAND, LABOR, AND MANAGEMENT
OPERATOR'S LABOR ( 5.4 HR. AT $4.50 HR . )
RETURN TO LAND AND MANAGEMENT
PER ACRE
TOTAL
VALUE
VALUE
11 .09
3371
i .05
319
6.86
2085
27.64
8403
16.12
4900
4.00
1216
6.25
1900
18.72
1691
8.99
2733
98.96
30083
9.98
3034
13.44
4087
4.90
1490
131 .14
39867
359.14
109179
181 .50
55176
177.64
-54 003
24.29
7384
201 .93
-61387
MTE - BASED ON PRELIMINARY BUDGETS DEVELOPED BY UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA,
DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS
. SPRING WHEAT
SURFACE - 31 5 ACRES
2, I 500 GPM WELLS
en
COSTS
PLOW
HARROW
DISC 2X
FERTILIZER
PLANTING
WEED CONTROL
INSECT CONTROL
HARVEST
HAULING
IRRIGATION (FUEL, REPAIR, MAINTENANCE)
GENERAL OVERHEAD ( 5% OF VARIABLE COSTS)
INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL (12.5%)
TAXES ON LAND
AMORTIZED LAND DEV . AND IRR. COSTS
TOTAL COSTS
I NCOME
55 BUSHELS AT S3.30/BU.
RETURN TO LAND, LABOR, AND MANAGEMENT
OPERATOR'S LABOR ( 6.04 HR. AT $4.50 HR.)
RETURN TO LAND AND MANAGEMENT
ER ACRE
TOTAL
VALUE
VALUE
It .09
3493
1 .05
331
6.86
2161
27.64
8707
16.12
5078
4.00
1260
6.25
1969
18.72
5897
8.99
2832
74.67
23522
8.76
2759
11 .85
3732
4.90
1543
1 02 . 69
32347
303.59
95 631
181 .50
57173
-1 22.09
-38458
27.17
8558
-149.26
-47017
NOTE - BASED ON PRELIMINARY BUDGETS DEVELOPED BY UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA,
DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS
ALFALFA SEED
CENTER PIVOT - 260 ACRES
2, I 500 GPM WELLS
COSTS
HARROW (WEED CONTROL) 3X
INSECT CONTROL
WEED CONTROL
DEFOLIATE
HARVEST & HAUL
CLEANING SEED
POLINATORS
INSECT MONITORING
HIRED LABOR
IRRIGATION (FUEL, REPAIR, MAINTENANCE)
£ GENERAL OVERHEAD ( 1% OF VARIABLE COSTS)
INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL (12.5%)
AMORTIZED ESTABLISHMENT COSTS
TAXES ON LAND
AMORTIZED LAND DEV . AND I RR. COSTS
TOTAL COSTS . 597.64 155387
INCOME
370 LBS. AT SI.35/LB.
RETURN TO LAND, LABOK, AND MANAGEMENT
OPERATOR'S LABOR ( 1.23 HR . AT $4.50 HR.)
RETURN TO LAND AND MANAGEMENT
NOTE - BASED ON PRELIMINARY BUDGETS DEVELOPED BY UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA.
DIVISION OF AGHICULTURAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS
PER ACRE
TOTAL
VALUE
VALUE
3.27
850
48.97
12732
28.44
7394
21 .00
5460
29.00
7 540
23.71
6165
9! .12
23691
6.00
1 560
4.50
1170
1 11 .52
2P995
18.37
4776
24.48
6365
30.67
7974
4.90
1274
151 .69
39439
499.50
129870
-98.14
-25517
5.53
1437
103.67
-2 69 55
ALFALFA SEED
SIDE ROLL - 304 ACRES
2, 15 00 GPM WELLS
PER ACRE
TOTAL
VALUE
VALUE
3.27
994
48.97
14887
28.44
8646
21 .00
6384
29.00
88 16
23.71
7208
91 .12
27700
6.00
1824
4.50
13 68
95.61
29066
17.58
53 44
23.43
7)24
30.67
9324
4.90
1490
131 .14
39867
COSTS
HARROW (WEED CONTROL) 3X
INSECT CONTROL
WEED CONTROL
DEFOLIATE
HARVEST & HAUL
CLEANING SEED
POLINATORS
INSECT MONITORING
HIRED LABOR
IRRIGATION (FUEL, REPAIR, MAINTENANCE)
g GENERAL OVERHEAD (5% OF VARIABLE COSTS)
INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL (12.5%)
AMORTIZED ESTABLISHMENT COSTS
TAXES ON LAND
AMORTIZED LAND DEV . AND I RR. COSTS
TOTAL COSTS 559.35 170042
I NCOME
370 LBS. AT $1 .35/LB.
RETURN TO LAND, LABOR, AND MANAGEMENT
OPERATOR'S LABOR (2.63 HR. AT $4.50 HR . )
RETURN TO LAND AND MANAGEMENT
NOTE - BASED ON PRELIMINARY BUDGETS DEVELOPED BY UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA,
DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS
499.50
151848
-59.85
-18194
11 .83
3 59 6
-71 .68
-21790
ALFALFA SEED
SURFACE - 315 ACHES
2, 1 bOO OPM WELLS
U1
COSTS
HARROW (WEED CONTROL) 3X
INSECT CONTROL
WEED CONTROL
DEFOLIATE
HARVEST & HAUL
CLEANING SEED
POLINATORS
INSECT MONITORING
HIRED LABOR
IRRIGATION (FUEL, REPAIR, MAINTENANCE)
GENERAL OVERHEAD (5% OF VARIABLE COSTS) ;
INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL (12.5%)
AMORTIZED ESTABLISHMENT COSTS
TAXES ON LAND
AMORTIZED LAND DEV . AND IRH. COSTS
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
370 LBS. AT SI.35/LB.
RETURN TO LAND, LABOR, AND MANAGEMENT
OPERATOR'S LABOR ( 2.61 HR . AT $4.50 HR. )
RETURN TO LAND AND MANAGEMENT
PER ACRE
TOTAL
VALUE
VALUE
3.27
1030
48.97
15426
28.44
89 59
21 .00
6615
29.00
9135
23.71
74 69
91 .12
28703
6.00
1890
-0.50
1418
71 .94
22 660
16.39
5163
21 .88
6S91
30.67
9661
4.90
1543
102.69
32347
50>n.47
158909
499.50
157343
-4.97
-1567
II .74
3698
-16.7!
-5265
NOTE - BASED ON PRELIMINARY BUDGETS DEVELOPED BY UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA,
DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS
HuniuaHHHnHBgHHH^HHHnHHMMHHH^HGflMHUHIEHUHBiHHI
APPENDIX B
BUDGET SUMMARIES
57
COSTS AND RETURNS FOR ALFALFA - 3 CUTTINGS
USING CURRENT (1978) PRICE
YIELDS
HIGH MEDIUM LOW
ALFALFA - 3 CUTTINGS
YIELDS - TONS PER ACRE
CENTER PIVOT - 2, 1500 GPU WELLS
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
RETURN (WITH LABOR)
NET RETURN
CENTER PIVOT - 3000 GPM WELL
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
RETURN (WITH LABOR)
NET RETURN
SIDE ROLL - 2, 1500 GPM WELLS
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
RETURN (WITH LABOR)
NET RETURN
SIDE ROLL - 3 000 GPM WELL
TOTAL COSTS
I NCOME
RETURN (WITH LABOR)
NET RETURN
SURFACE - 2, 1 500 GPM WELLS
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
RETURN (WITH LABOR)
NET RETURN
SURFACE - 3000 GPM WELL
TOTAL COSTS
I NCOME
RETURN (WITH LABOR)
NET RETURN
4 1 1 .56
285.00
-126.56
-145.41
407.66
228.00
-179. 66
-198.51
403.76
1 7 1 . 00
-232.76
-251 .61
357.33
285.00
-72.33
-91.18
353.43
228 . 00
-125.43
-1 44.28
349.53
1 7 1 . 00
-178.53
-197.38
370.47
285.00
-85.47
-1 10.62
3 66.57
228.00
-138.57
-1 63.72
362.67
I 7 1 . 00
-191 .67
-21 6.82
323.91
285.00
-38.91
-64.0 6
320.01
228.00
-92.01
-117.16
31 6.1 1
1 7 1 . 00
-145.1 1
-170.26
313.34
285.00
-28.34
-56.86
309.44
228.00
-81 .44
-109.96
305.54
1 7 1 . 00
-134.54
-163.06
2 59.3 5
285.00
25.65
-2.87
255.45
228.00
-27.45
-55.97
251 .55
1 7 1 . 00
-80.55
-109.07
58
COSTS AND RETURNS FOR ALFALFA - 2 CUTTINGS
USING CURRENT (1978) PRICE
YIELDS
HIGH MEDIUM LOW
ALFALFA - 2 CUTTINGS
YIELDS - TONS PER ACRE
CENTER PIVOT -
2, 1500 GPM WELLS
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
358.10
1 7 1 . 00
-187.10
-202.17
354.20
1 1 4.00
-240.20
-255.27
350.30
57.00
-293.30
-308.37
CENTER PIVOT -
3 000 GPM WELL
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
314.40
1 7 1 . 00
-143.40
-1 58.47
310.50
11 4.00
-196. £0
-2 11 .57
30 6.60
57.00
-^249. 60
-2 64 . 67
SIDE ROLL - 2,
1500 GPM WELLS
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
320. 8^
1 71 .00
-149.84
-1 71 .21
31 6.94
1 1 4 . 00
-202.9^
-224.31
313.04
57.00
-256.04
-2 77.4 1
SIDE ROLL - 3 000 GPM WELL
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
282.90
171 .00
-1 11 .90
-133.27
279.00
1 1 4 . 00
- 1 65 . 00
-186.37
275.10
57.00
-218.10
-239.47
SURFACE - 2, 15 00 GPM WELLS
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
267.54
1 7 1 . 00
-96.54
-117.19
2 63 . 64
1 1 4.00
-1 49.64
-170.29
259.74
57 . 00
-202.74
-223.39
SJHFACE - 3 000
GPM WELL
TOTAL COSTS
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
220.26
1 7 1 . 00
-49.26
-69.91
21 6.36
1 1 4 . 00
-102.36
-123.01
212.46
57.00
-1 55.46
-176. 1 i
59
COSTS AND RETURNS FOR SPRING WHEAT
USING CURRENT (1978) PRICE
HIGH
YIELDS
MEDIUM
LOW
SPRING WHEAT
YIELDS - BU. PER ACRE
80
60
40
CENTER PIVOT -
2, 1 500 GPM WELLS
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
398.11
267.20
-130.91
-148.91
398. J 1
200.40
-197.71
-215.71
398.11
133.60
-264.51
-282.51
CENTER PIVOT -
3 000 GPM WELL
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
350.59
267.20
-83.39
-101 .39
350.59
200.40
-1 50.19
- 1 68 . 1 9
3 50.59
133.60
-21 6.99
-234.99
SIDE ROLL - 2,
15 00 GPM WELLS
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
359.14
267.20
-91 .94
-11 6.23
3 59 . 1 4
200.40
-1 58.74
-183.03
3 59 . 1 4
133.60
-225.54
-249.83
SIDE ROLL - 3 000 GPM WELL
TOTAL COST
' INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
318.05
267.20
-50.85
-75.14
318.05
200.40
-117.65
-141 .94
318.05
1 33 . 60
-184.45
-208.74
SURFACE - 2, 1500 GPM WELLS
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
303.59
267.20
-36.39
-63.56
303.59
200.40
-103.19
-130.36
303.59
1 33 . 60
-169.99
-197.16
SURFACE - 3000
GPM WELL
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH
NET RETURN
LABOR)
2 53 . 87
267.20
13.33
-13.84
. 253.87
200.40
-53.47
-80.64
253.87
1 33 . 60
-120.27
-1 47.44
60
COSTS AND RETURNS FOR POTATOES
USING CURRENT C 1 978) PRICE
YIELDS
HIGH MEDIUM LOW
POTATOES
YIELDS - CWT. PER ACRE 400 325 275
CENTER PIVOT- 2, 1500 GPM WELLS
TOTAL COST
1063.31
1063.31
1063.31
INCOME
1200.00
975.00
825.00
RETURN (WITH
LABOR)
136.69
-88.31
-238.31
NET RETURN
1 19.41
-J 05. 59
-255.59
NTER PIVOT -
3000 GPM WELL
TOTAL COST
1027.90
1027.90
1027.90
INCOME
1200.00
975.00
825.00
RETURN (WITH
LABOR)
172.10
-52.90
-202.90
NET RETURN
1 54.82
-70.18
-220.1 8
SIDE ROLL - 2, 1500 GPM WELLS
TOTAL COST
1028.74
1028.74
1028.74
INCOME
1200.00
975.00
82 5.00
RETURN (WITH LABOR)
171 .26
-53.74
-203.74
NET RETURN
147.68
-77.32
-227.32
DE ROLL - 3 000 GPM WELL
TOTAL COST
997.57
997 . 57
997.57
INCOME
12 00.00
975.00
82 5.00
RETURN (WITH LABOR)
202.43
-22.57
-172.57
NET RETURN
178.85
-46.15
-196.1 t
SURFACE - ?, 15no GPM WELLS
TOTAL COST
977.60
977.60
977.60
INCOME
12 00.00
975.00
82 5.00
RETURN (WITH
LABOR)
222.40
-2.60
-152.60
NET RETURN
194.32
-30.68
-1 80.68
SURFACE - 3 000
GPM WELL
TOTAL COST
935.60
935.60
935.60
INCOME
1200.00
975 . 00
82 5.00
RETURN (WITH
LABOR)
264.40
39.40
-1 10.60
NET RETUKN
236.32
11 .32
-138.68
61
COSTS AND RETURNS FOR ALFALFA SEED
USING CURRENT (1978) PRICE
HIGH
YIELDS
MEDIUM
LOW
ALFALFA SEED
YIELDS - CWT. PER ACRE
CENTER PIVOT - 2, 1500 GPM WELLS
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH LABOR)
NET RETURN
CENTER PIVOT - 3000 GPM WELL
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH LABOR)
NET RETURN
SIDE ROLL - 2, 1500 GPM WELLS
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH LABOR)
NET RETURN
SIDE ROLL - 3 000 GPM WELL
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH LABOR)
NET RETURN
SURFACE - 2, 1500 GPM WELLS
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH LA BOH)
NET RETURN
SURFACE - 3000 GPM WELL
TOTAL COST
INCOME
RETURN (WITH LABOR)
NET RETURN
597 .
64
597.
64
597,
64
675.
00
540.
00
405.
00
77.
36
-57.
64
-192,
64
71 .
83
-63.
17
-198.
17
5fcl .
98
551 .
98
551 .
98
675 -,
00
540.
00
405.
00
123.
02
-11 .
98
-146
,98
117.
49
-17.
51
-152.
51
559.
35
559.
35
559
.35
675.
00
540
00
405
.00
.11 5
.65
-19,
35
— ! 54,
.35
103.
.82
-31 ,
18
-166
.18
519
,78
519
.78
519
.78
675
.00
540
,00
4 05
.00
155
.22
20
.22
-1 1 4
.78
1 43
.39
8
.39
-126
.61
504
.47
504
.47
504
.47
67 5
.00
540
.00
405
.00
170
.53
35
.53
-99
.47
1 58
.79
23
.79
-1 11
.21
4 55
.93
4 55
.93
Z£;5
.93
67 5
.00
540
.00
405
.00
219
.07
84
.07
-50
.93
207
.33
72
.33
-62
.67
62
. . a ... s • ■
Federa
P.o-Bo*no8oaa5-0047
er:
CO
IS
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11