(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Analysis of agricultural potential for desert land entries in Nevada"

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 n p^ 



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 





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 





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 Ida ho 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) 








206 


27 


5763 


1 


160 


399 


43 


10087 


2 


200 


213 


122 


29095 








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 . 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 




L T-| ! ! ' 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 


ill 1 ' 


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 


III 1 


. 




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 


r y 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 








.'II 1 '! 


1 ; 
















i i : i ■ | 




\at - - y 1 


/ ' 






■ ■ : ; i 




S200 


■ ; i i ■ 








1 | ' M M M 










i i ,i 




/l I v Af, 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 Re turns 
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. Agricultura l P otential 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 ~.,.!l e XarigL- 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 

J A - 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 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. o 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 i A q 7 

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 . K p 

GENERAL OVERHEAD (5% OF VARIABLE COSTS) 9 71 ' ?0 u R 

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 '„ *o n 

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 i J EK 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 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 


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 irr 1 . 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 


z . n 


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 ' ) 

*"WTI Xt0 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 

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 *no8oaa 5 - 0047 



er : 



CO 



IS