UNIVERSITY OF
ILLINOIS LIBRARY
AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
AGRICULTURE
NQN CIRCULATING
i
CHECK FOR UNBOUND
CIRCULATING COPY
6M— 2-57— 61
e&i> \
FIELD CROP COSTS
AND RETURNS
1948-1954
A study of costs and returns
in four majofwtfpnHtff-farming areas
of Illinois ApR j 1957
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
By
R. H. Wilcox
and
R. A. Hinton
Bulletin 609
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
Location of areas and years
in which study was made in
each. (Fig. 1)
CONTENTS
PAGE
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 3
SELECTION OF FARMS 4
LOCATION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF FARMS 4
I — CROP COSTS AND RETURNS, 1948-1954 5
Per-Acre Total Costs and Returns, Net Returns, and Costs
of Producing Feed Nutrients 6
Per-Acre Variations in Costs and Returns 8
Relation of Yields to Per-Acre Costs 14
Effect of Size of Field Machinery on Labor, and Power
and Machinery Costs per Acre 19
Results of Study as Guide to Crop Selection 21
II — TRENDS IN COSTS AND RETURNS, 1921-1952 25
Labor Required Declined 26
Operating Costs per Acre Increased 27
Cash Costs Increased 30
SUMMARY 31
APPENDIX . .32
Urhana, Illinois
March, 1957
Publications in the Bulletin series report the results of investigations made
or sponsored by the Experiment Station
FIELD CROP COSTS AND RETURNS, 1948-1954
R. H. WILCOX and R. A. HINTON'
COST-ACCOUNT STUDIES have been conducted by the Illinois
Agricultural Experiment Station in some areas of the state since July,
1912.2 This report, covering the most recent seven years of these
studies, represents one phase of this work.
Beginning in 1948, the plan of the cost project was revised and an
additional objective set up — to secure detailed information on total
farm costs and returns for some well-defined systems of farming. For
21 years, 1927-1947, cost data had been collected from a sample of
farmers in Champaign and Piatt counties. But beginning in 1948, the
study was located for two years in each of four major type-of-farming
areas of the state. This change permitted cost data to be secured on
enterprises either not present on Champaign and Piatt county farms, or
more important in farm organizations in other areas. It also allowed
differences in soil and climate to be reflected in crop costs and yields.
This change in emphasis resulted not only in the two-year rotation
of the study to the major type-of-farming areas in the state, but also in
a change in the methods by which the costs were computed. The differ-
ence in the method of computing was largely one of regrouping cost
items so as to identify the basic source of the cost within the frame-
work of four major factors of production — land, labor, capital, and
management. The attempt to allocate all costs — direct, joint, and
overhead — to the productive enterprises was continued.
The addition of a management charge to the cost-of-production
data was another major change. But aside from this and the regroup-
ing of costs, the method of computing total costs was not changed. (For
details of the methods of computation, see the Appendix, pages 32-42.)
Purpose of the Study
The primary purpose was to record and analyze the crop data for
the four major type-of-farming areas of the state for the years 1948-
1954. Secondary purposes were to provide information on the profit-
ableness of alternative crops and on physical costs. It is expected that
1 R. H. Wilcox, formerly Professor of Agricultural Economics, and R. A.
Hinton, Research Associate in Farm Management.
* For a summary of earlier studies, see R. H. Wilcox and H. C. M. Case,
Twenty-Five Years of Illinois Crop Costs, 1913-1937. 111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui.
467. 1940.
4 BULLETIN No. 609 [March,
the information provided by these secondary aims will prove useful
in planning and organizing farms and that it will be helpful in inter-
preting less complete farm records.
Much of the data are not new. Annual mimeographed reports have
been summarized and published for use by cooperating farmers, farm
advisers, teachers, research workers, and others in the field of agri-
culture. These data have been used in the classroom and drawn upon
frequently for extension and research presentations.
Selection of Farms
The farms from which the cost data were obtained were selected
from among farms enrolled in the Illinois Farm-Bureau Farm-
Management Service.1 The criteria for selection were type of farm,
size of farm, quality of soil, and level of management. Past records of
cooperators provided the means for selecting farms meeting these
criteria.
Of course, the willingness of the farm operator to keep the detailed
records required of him was a major consideration. However, the fact
that these farmers were already keeping detailed records of their farm
business under the supervision of a fieldman from the Farm-Bureau
Farm-Management Service made it possible to obtain records of the
hours of labor used and other information needed to make a complete
allocation of costs for an enterprise and get it with a minimum of
additional effort on the cooperator's part.
Location and Characteristics of Farms
To get as nearly a normal set of cost and return relationships as
possible, the study was made in each area for two years. Four geograph-
ical areas were included — the western, northwestern, central, and
southern. The counties in each area and the years in which the study
was conducted there are shown in Fig. 1. Although each area was part
of an association of the Farm-Bureau Farm-Management Service, each
also tends to represent a different type-of-f arming area.2 These areas
present a wide range of climatic and soil differences.
1 The Illinois Farm-Bureau Farm-Management Service is a cooperative
service available to all farm operators in Illinois. The functions of this service
are to provide assistance to farmers through farm records and farm business
analyses and to provide farm financial and other data to the Agricultural
Experiment Station for farm-management research and extension work.
* For a comprehensive description of the types of farming prevailing in the
areas, see R. C. Ross and H. C. M. Case, Types of Farming in Illinois. 111. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Bui. 601. 1956.
1957]
FIELD CROP COSTS AND RETURNS
Table 1. — Location of Areas and Characteristics of Farms
Studied, 1948-1954
J
Area and systems
of farming
lumber
of
farms
Total
acres
per
farm
Crop
acres
per
farm
Soil pro-
ductivity
rating
per
farm
Animal
units of
livestock
per 100
farm acres
Western area, 1948-1949
Grain
16
305
238
75
12
Hog
16
278
203
78
35
Feeder cattle and hog
15
232
166
79
38
Beef cattle and hog
11
380
174
54
32
Dairy and hog
15
125
80
57
42
Northwestern area, 1949-1950
Dairy and hog
56
197
122
62
34
Feeder cattle and hog
16
217
144
66
46
Central area, 1951-1952
Grain . .
30
270
212
79
14
Hog .
22
249
174
67
38
Feeder cattle and hog .
23
336
235
70
34
Southern area, 1953-1954
Grain
22
395
291
30
9
Dairy
44
218
154
37
18
Mixed livestock
26
326
210
30
22
The systems of farming and characteristics of the farms are given
as general background for the study (Table 1). These systems repre-
sent some of the important types of farms in each area; however, they
do not necessarily include all the important types of farms in the areas.
Many of the differences in crop costs and returns can be traced to such
factors as climate, quality of soil, size of equipment, size of farm, and
cropping practices.
I — CROP COSTS AND RETURNS, 1948-1954
Crop yields and costs for the western, northwestern, and central
areas were generally considered near normal. In both years of the
study in the southern area, however, drouth and hot weather distorted
the normal crop-yield relationships. Corn yields in particular were
below normal, while small-grain yields were somewhat above normal.
In 1954 a considerable part of the corn acreage was abandoned after
it had been planted and cultivated. As a consequence, the 1954 data for
corn are of limited usefulness for purposes ,pf comparison.
6 BULLETIN No. 609 [March,
Per-Acre Total Costs and Returns, Net Returns, and
Costs of Producing Feed Nutrients
Per-acre costs, returns, and net returns over costs are useful in
selecting cropping systems, in explaining why certain crops are grown
in given areas, and in interpreting less detailed crop records. The
two-year summary of costs and returns (Table 2) shows the total land,
labor, capital, and management costs, the total returns, and net returns
for crops studied in each area. More detailed annual cost data are
presented in Tables 11-16 in the Appendix.
Total costs
Costs varied less from crop to crop than did the value of the crops.
Of the crops studied, total per-acre costs for corn both as grain and
silage were highest. Total per-acre costs of wheat, soybeans, and mixed
hay differed little. In all areas, lowest total costs per acre were for oats.
Comparison of the four items of cost — -land, labor, capital, and
management — shows the capital charge1 the highest. The annual sum-
maries (Tables 11-16 in the Appendix) show that among the items
composing capital charges, the combined cost of tractor, truck, and
oilier machinery was the largest item of cost for all crops. On corn and
wheat, manure and other fertilizers were the second largest item, while
seed was next on soybeans and oats. Buildings and general farm ex-
pense were next in order. Other crop expense included insurance on
stored grain, hail insurance, weed and insect sprays, and miscellaneous
storage charges and was the smallest item on all crops.
Land charges were generally second to capital charges. On corn
silage, however, labor was the second highest charge.
Total returns
The value of the five crops differed greatly. Total returns were
highest for corn and lowest for oats in all areas, the value of corn
being over twice that of oats. In southern Illinois, returns from wheat
were almost as large as those from corn. In those areas of northern
Illinois in which both corn and soybeans were grown, total returns per
acre from soybeans ranked next to those from corn. Returns from hay
totaled slightly more than those from oats.
Returns on a two-year basis may not accurately reflect the long-time
relationships within and between areas. For instance, in southern
Illinois, drouth in 1953 and both drouth and heat in 1954 reduced corn
1 In this bulletin, the terms cost and charge are used interchangeably.
1957] FIELD CROP COSTS AND RETURNS
Table 2. — Per-Acre Costs and Returns on Selected Crops
(Two-year summary for each of four areas)
Item
Corn b^n's Oats
Winter
wheat
Mixed
alfalfa
hay
Corn
silage
Western area, 1948-1949
Number of farms
70 24 68
47
Acres of crop per farm
. 87.5 41.1 50.2
22 9
Production per acre, bushel .
. 71.8 30.2 51.2
2.2*
Costs
Land
. 310 14 310 30 510.19
310 10
Labor
9 44 6 08 3 63
9 62
Capital
. 27.88 16.96 12.79
19.86
Management
2.55 2.28 1.56
1.63
Total
. 50.01 35.62 28.17
41.21
Total returns
. 92 82 70 28 37 74
53 25
Net returns. . ....
42 81 34 66 9 57
12 04
Northwestern area, 1949-1950
Number of farms
.75 65
58
49
Acres of crop per farm
. 52.0 39.1
29.9
7.2
Production per acre, bushel .
. 71.5 52.8
2.4*
12.0*
Costs
Land
. $ 9.19 $ 9.03
3 9.08
3 9.15
Labor
. 9.95 3.65
6.88
14.84
Capital
. 40.56 15.64
23.97
55.48
Management
2.91 1.35
1.94
3.86
Total
. 62.61 29.67
41.87
83.33
Total returns
. 103 60 ... 44 15
57 75
Net returns
40 99 14 48
15 88
Central area, 1951-1952
Number of farms
75 58 72
50
49
Acres of crop per farm
94 9 46 0 36 6
34 4
27 4
Production per acre, bushel
69 8 31 1 44 6
27 6
1 7*
Costs
Land
. 314 37 314 60 314 14
314 22
313.20
Labor
8 46 6 81 3 94
4 22
7 04
Capital
30 31 20 52 14 37
19 55
19 77
Management. . .
2 89 2 29 1 78
2 13
2 13
Total .
56 03 44 22 34 23
40 12
42 14
Total returns
. 113 06 87 26 38 48
61 60
42 80
Net returns
57 03 43 04 4 25
21 48
.66
Southern area, 1953-1954
Number of farms
. 41» 74 48
88
34»
33a
Acres of crop per farm
. 51.6 59.8 20.0
50.0
37.9
15.1
Production per acre, bushel .
. 46.5 13.8 37.9
32.4
1.7*
7.6*
Costs
Land
. $ 7.67 $ 7.79 $ 7.88
3 7.71
3 7.65
3 7.42
Labor
. 7.65 4.87 3.89
4.21
5.17
11.60
Capital
. 43.84 22.51 18.12
27.46
22.35
38.17
Management
. 2.45 1.38 1.13
1.48
1.68
2.30
Total
. 61.60 36.55 31.02
40.86
36.85
59.49
Total returns
. 67 83 37 64 28 15
62 86
45 30
Net returns
6 23 1 09 -2 87
22 00
8 45
• 1953 data only.
* Tons.
8 BULLETIN No. 609 [March,
and hay yields, and to a lesser extent reduced soybean yields, but did
not affect small-grain yields. In other years of the study, however,
climatic conditions were believed to be more nearly normal.
Nef returns
The net return above all costs is the return that remains to all
factors of production above the charges made for such factors in the
cost analysis.
Of the five crops, corn showed the highest net returns per acre in
the northern two-thirds of the state. Soybeans were next, and in the
central area, wheat was third. In these areas, oats and mixed hay
showed the lowest net returns per acre.
In southern Illinois, wheat showed the highest net return per acre
and oats the lowest. Hay, corn, and soybeans in this order were the
next most profitable crops.
Costs of producing feed nutrients
Corn both as grain and silage produced the largest quantity of total
digestible nutrients per acre and tended to produce these nutrients
at the lowest cost per 100 pounds (Table 3). In the northwestern and
southern areas, hay produced total digestible nutrients cheaper than
corn grain. In all areas, oats produced the least total feed per acre
at the highest cost per 100 pounds.
Producing 100 pounds of total digestible nutrients- from hay and
corn silage usually required more labor than 'producing 100 pounds
from corn grain and oats.
Per-Acre Variations in Costs and Returns
Area to area
Among the four areas, differences in costs and returns from a given
crop show the differences in the resources of the areas and the relative
adaptability of the crop to the area.
Differences in total costs per acre for various crops were not
significant from area to area, even though some of the real differences
may be confounded by year-to-year changes. Major differences be-
tween areas were in individual items of cost rather than in total cost.
The differences in the average land charges from area to area, for
the most part, reflect differences in the quality of soils, even though
land prices increased modestly throughout the period. Current land
values were assigned each year on the basis of soil-productivity ratings.
Soil-productivity ratings and land charges were highest in the central
1957] FIELD CROP COSTS AND RETURNS
Table 3. — Comparative Costs of Producing Feed Nutrients in
Alternative Feed Crops, Four Areas
Direct man
Average
Crop yield per
acre*
Total
digestible
nutrients
per acre
Cost
per
acreb
Cost per
100 lb.,
total
digestible
nutrients
hours of
labor per
100 lb.
total di-
gestible
nutrients
bu.
Western area
Corn
. . 67
3,022
$50
.01
*1.
65
.25
Oats
. . 46
1,053
28
.17
2
.68
.30
Mixed alfalfa hay
.. 2
. 2 (tons)
2,200
41
.21
1
.89
.40
Northwestern area
Corn
. . 70
3,157
62
.61
1
,98
.27
Oats
51
1,168
29
.67
2
,54
.29
Corn silage (tons)
.. 12
4,488
83
,33
1
86
.34
Mixed alfalfa hay, .
.. 2
A (tons)
2,400
41
.87
1
,74
.30
Central area
Corn
. . 64
2,886
56
.03
1
94
.23
Oats
. . 47
1,076
34
.23
3
,18
.29
Mixed alfalfa hay
.. 2
(tons)
2,000
42
14
2,
11
.29
Southern area
Corn
. . 45
2,030
61
.61
3
03
.32
Oats
. . 36
824
29
.69
3
60
.46
Corn silage (tons) ....
.. 8
2,992
59
.49
1
99
.39
Mixed alfalfa hay
1
. 7 (tons)
1,700
36
.85
2
.17
.28
» Average yields on farms in the Farm- Bureau Farm-Management Service, 1946-1955 for
western, northwestern, and central areas, and 1951-1955 for southern area.
b Per-acre costs, western area 1948-1949; northwestern, 1949-1950; central, 1951-1952;
and southern, 1953-1954.
area, second highest in the western, third highest in the northwestern,
and lowest in the southern area.
In the northwestern and southern areas where the land in crops
was of lower quality, capital charges per acre for corn tended to be
higher than they were in the central and western areas, because ex-
penses for manure and other fertilizers were higher. The manure and
other fertilizer charges for corn averaged $12.21 and $14.69 in the
northwestern area and $19.76 and $22.69 per acre in the southern. In
contrast, these charges averaged $6.25 and $6.72 per acre in the west-
ern and $7.02 and $8.75 in the central area (Table 11 in the Appendix) .
Other costs did not show significant differences between areas,
although there is some indication that expenses for tractor, truck, and
other machinery were higher in the northwestern than in other areas.
If these expenses were higher, the reason is believed to be that on these
10 BULLETIN No. 609 [March,
farms the acreages cropped were smaller than they were on farms in
the other areas, and therefore the fixed costs per acre were slightly
higher on them than on the larger farms.
Yields per acre did not differ greatly among farms in the areas in
the northern two-thirds of the state. Corn and soybean yields in the
southern area were significantly below those in other areas, although
the heat and drouth at crucial stages in the growth of these crops
during the years of the study tend to overstate the normal differences
expected. Oat and hay yields tend to be higher in the northern areas
of the state than elsewhere. Climatic and soil differences between the
northern and southern areas tend to explain these differences in yields.
Year to year
Year-to-year variations in costs and returns show the effects of
variations in yields, commodity prices, and costs of items of expense.
Although the areas of the study changed over the seven-year period,
total costs per acre were relatively stable from year to year. Prices of
important items that enter into the costs of crop production increased
slightly during the period. These changes, however, were minor com-
pared to the great changes in crop prices.
Returns tended to fluctuate more widely than costs, because both
yields and prices varied widely. Within a "given area, year-to-year
fluctuations in yields can be primarily attributed to weather. The
southern Illinois corn crop in 1954 is an example of the effect of
weather on yields. The crop averaged only 16 bushels an acre (Table 11
in the Appendix), whereas in 1953 it had averaged 46.5 bushels. These
figures, however, do not clearly show the true variation, since in 1954 a
third more of the crop was either harvested as silage or abandoned than
was so handled in 1953. In other areas average corn yields from one
year to the next varied as follows: western, 78.5 to 65 bushels an acre;
northwestern, 76.6 to 66.6; and central, 69.7 to 69.8 bushels. The differ-
ence in average yield did not appear to vary with average total costs per
acre.
The year-to-year changes in product prices were as great as, if not
greater than, the changes in yields. Prices per bushel for various crops
during the seven years of the study ranged as follows: corn, $1.28 to
$1.70; soybeans, $2.25 to $2.81; oats, 68 to 85 cents; wheat, $1.75 to
$2.25; and hay per ton, $18 to $24 (Tables 11-16 in the Appendix).
Since total costs were relatively stable, net returns varied as greatly
from year to year as total returns.
1957}
FIELD CROP COSTS AND RETURNS
11
Farm fo farm
Differences in production costs and returns per acre from farm to
farm show the variations due to resources available, cropping practices,
and managerial ability of farmers. Farm-to- farm differences in costs
and returns per acre were greater than the differences from year to
year or from area to area. Total costs and yields per acre for corn
grain in each of the four areas by years (Table 4) show the variations
in average total costs and yields and their standard deviations.
(Standard deviation measures the absolute dispersion of the individual
farm data around the average or mean of all farms. For instance, in
1948 the standard deviation of total costs per acre for corn in the
western area was $9.76. This means that about 68 percent of the farms
in the study that year had corn-crop costs that were not more than
$9.76 above or below that of the average of all farms in the study,
or between $39.39 and $58.91.)
Table 4. — Variations in Total Costs and Yields per Acre of Corn Grain
(Four areas)
Area and year
Number
of farms
Total costs per acre
Yield per acre
Standard
deviation
Mean
Standard
deviation
Mean
Western area
1948..
38
$ 9.76
10.79
11.97
15.20
7.16
10.07
12.82
13.40
$49.15
50.85
59.81
65.22
54.26
58.07
61.61
59.83
bu.
13.7
10.0
13.1
12.4
10.3
8.2
12.7
10.5
bu.
78.5
65.0
76.6
66.6
69.7
69.8
46.5
16.0
1949
32
Northwestern area
1949
36
1950
39
Central area
1951
40
1952
35
Southern area
1953
41
1954
45
The dispersion of the data for other crops in this and other years
was similar to that of corn. The scatter diagrams of relationship of costs
and yields of corn and wheat (Figs. 2 and 3) also illustrate the range
in the individual farm data. This wide dispersion in the cost and yield
data should caution the reader against attaching too much significance
to small differences in the averages of data presented in this bulletin.
The wide dispersion and the small number of farms make it diffi-
12
* 80
60
40
20
BULLETIN No. 609
[March,
.40
TOTAL PER ACRE
CORN COSTS AND YIELDS
NET PER BUSHEL
50
60
70
80
90
Although total costs of corn per acre varied from $41 to $71 and yields
from 52 to 90 bushels an acre on 40 farms in the Central Area in 1951,
per-acre costs and yields were not highly correlated. Average per-acre
costs increased only 1 1 cents with each bushel increase in yields, but per-
bushel net costs decreased 1 cent with each bushel increase. (Fig. 2)
cult to isolate statistically significant factors affecting costs and returns
between farms in any one year. It is reasonable to expect that costs and
yields per acre vary with the quantity and quality of resources used
in production. Differences between farms, however, cannot all be ex-
plained by differences in soil productivity, amount of fertilizers,
1957]
ft 50
40
20
FIELD CROP COSTS AND RETURNS
13
1 1. 60
1.20
.80
.40
TOTAL PER ACRE
WHEAT COSTS AND YIELDS
NET PER BUSHEL
10
20
30
40
50
Total per-acre costs of wheat varied from $26 to $49 and yields from 20
to 40 bushels an acre on 45 farms in the Southern Area in 1953. On the
average, per-acre costs increased 25 cents with each bushel increase in
yields, but per-bushel net costs decreased 3 cents with each bushel
increase. (Fig. 3)
14 BULLETIN No. 609 [March,
amount and kind of power and machinery, labor, and other resources
used. Yields do not always vary directly with the amount of individual
cost items or with the total of all cost items.
Some differences can be explained since resources substitute for
one another. For instance, fertilizer may substitute for land, and power
and machinery for labor. Other differences result from random influ-
ences beyond the farmer's control, such as storms, hail, and rainfall
which do not occur uniformly. Some differences may be caused by
accounting procedures which permitted different cost rates to be applied
for similar services between farms.
Many of the unexplained differences in costs and returns, however,
must be attributed to differences in the managerial ability of the indi-
vidual farmer. Costs and returns often vary widely on two farms
operated identically on similar soils and having other similar resources.
Managerial decisions concerning timing of practices seem to be as im-
portant as resources and practices used.
Relation of Yields to Per-Acre Costs
Effects of yields on costs
Individual items of cost on five central Illinois farms having the
highest corn and soybean yields were compared with the same items on
five farms having the lowest yields (Figs. 4 and 5). Comparisons of the
same items were made on five farms in southern Illinois having the high-
est and five having the lowest wheat yields (Fig. 6). Though the
samples are admittedly small, the findings are believed to be valid.
Yield per acre stood out as the most important factor affecting the
per-bushel cost of production. In the central area, on farms having
the same inherent soil-productivity rating and similar value and tax
levy, the range in yields was wide. But the yield per acre had no effect
on the land charge. Other costs, including building expenses, general
farm expenses, and management charges tended to be the same at both
yield levels. Land charges and other costs for soybeans and wheat
accounted for over 50 percent of the total per-acre costs.
Power and machinery costs per acre for corn, wheat, and soybeans
were slightly higher on farms having high yields than on those having
low yields. Man labor also for corn and soybeans was higher on the
farms having high yields. And as might be expected, costs of soil
improvement (manure and other fertilizers) on corn and wheat were
higher on farms having high yields than on those having low.
Since the per-acre costs of many items were of similar amounts,
1957}
FIELD CROP COSTS AND RETURNS
15
60
50
40
30
20
10
1.00
.75
.50
.25
CORN COSTS
CENTRAL AREA, 1952
E^5 HIGH-YIELDING FARMS
^S LOW- YIELDING FARMS
PER ACRE
PER BUSHEL
TOTAL
LAND
LABOR
POWER,
MACH-
INERY
SOIL
IMPROVE-
MENT
OTHER
All per-acre costs except soil-improvement costs were similar. Conse-
quently all per-bushel costs except soil-improvement costs were sig-
nificantly lower on the high-yielding farms. Corn averaged 84 and
57 bushels an acre, respectively, on the two groups. (Fig. 4)
16
BULLETIN No. 609
[March,
ft 50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
$2.25
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
.75
.50
.25
SOYBEAN COSTS
CENTRAL AREA, 1952
|^5 HIGH -YIELDING FARMS
[>>Xj 5 LOW-YIELDING FARMS
PER ACRE
PER BUSHEL
TOTAL LAND LABOR POWER, SOIL OTHER
MACH- IMPROVE-
INERY MENT
All per-acre costs were similar, and therefore all per-bushel costs
were significantly lower on the high-yielding farms. Soybeans aver-
aged 37 and 21 bushels an acre, respectively, on the two groups.
(Fig. 5)
FIELD CROP COSTS AND RETURNS
17
WHEAT COSTS
SOUTHERN AREA, 1953
5 HIGH-YIELDING FARMS
LOW- YIELDING FARMS
PER ACRE
PER BUSHEL
TOTAL
LAND
LABOR
POWER,
MACH-
INERY
SOIL
IMPROVE-
MENT
OTHER
All per-acre costs except soil-improvement costs were similar. Conse-
quently all per-bushel costs except soil-improvement costs were
lower on the high-yielding farms. Wheat averaged 43 and 26
bushels an acre, respectively, on the two groups. (Fig. 6)
18 BULLETIN No. 609 [March,
the total per-bushel costs were significantly lower on the high-yielding
than on the low-yielding farms (Figs. 4, 5, and 6). All the per-bushel
cost items were lower on the high-yielding than on the low-yielding
farms except the costs of soil improvement on corn and wheat. The soil-
improvement costs for corn on the high-yielding farms were about
double those on the low-yielding and for wheat were about the same
at both yield levels.
Higher per-acre costs for producing corn and wheat tended to be
associated with higher yields (Figs. 2 and 3). The increase in costs,
however, was associated with a more than proportional increase in
yields, and therefore costs per bushel tended to decrease rapidly as yield
increased.
The data indicate that a large part of the costs of producing crops
do not vary with yield. Some production practices, such as the use
of fertilizers, or weed and insect sprays, are associated directly with
yields. Most farm operators can usually decide whether to adopt such
practices by figuring out whether the value of the additional yield will
be greater than the additional costs of the practices.
Large yields needed to meet production costs
During the years of this study, about 75 percent of the returns from
the principal cash-grain crops was required to pay all production costs
per acre. The remaining 25 percent of the returns may be considered
profit, or may be considered an added return to invested capital and
to the operator's and the family's labor and management over and
above the charges made to the crop for these factors.
The level of crop yields necessary to pay all production costs de-
pends on the price of the crop and, of course, on the level of costs. An
important part of the production cost depends on the value of land,
for the land charge varies directly with land value.
In any area, land values per acre are determined largely by long-
time net returns per acre to land under typical combinations of crops.
If prices of farm products decline, land charges also will go down,
since the value of land will drop.
The yields of the principal cash-grain crops that are required to
equal total production costs on land at various price levels in central
Illinois in 1951-1952 are shown in Table 5. These figures are based
on the assumption that costs of production do not vary with changes
in product prices and that the only cost of production that does vary
with land value is the land charge.
1957} FIELD CROP COSTS AND RETURNS 19
Table 5. — Yields per Acre Required to Equal Total
Production Costs per Acre
(Land at various values and crops at various prices, Central Area, 1951-1952)
Farm price Land value per acre _
per bushel
Corn bu. bu. bu. bu.
32.00 ............................... 26 28 30 32
1.75 ............................... 30 32 34 37
1.50 ............................... 35 37 40 43
1.25 ............................... 42 45 48 52
1.00 ............................... 52 56 60 65
Soybeans
33.00 ............................... 14 15 16 18
2.50 ............................... 16 18 19 21
2.00 ............................... 20 22 24 26
1.50 ........... . ................... 27 30 32 35
Winter wheat
$2.50 ............................... 14 15 17 19
2.25 ............................... 15 17 19 21
2.00 ............................... 17 19 21 23
1.75 ............................... 20 22 24 27
1.50 ............................... 23 26 28 31
Oats
$1.25 ..................... 23 26 30 33
1.00 ............................... 29 33 37 41
.75 ............................... 39 44 50 55
.50.. 58 66 74 82
Effect of Size of Field Machinery on Labor, and
Power and Machinery Costs per Acre
The average number of hours of labor required per acre for grow-
ing, harvesting, storing, and marketing crops depends on several
factors. The hours spent on field operations depend on the number of
operations performed as well as the time of each field operation. Im-
portant factors affecting the hours of labor required per acre for any
given field operation are the effective width of the machine, average
speed at which it travels, length of the fields, the time for turning at
the end of the field, and the time used on over-all service and rest in
the field.1
A cross tabulation of the size of machine with the total labor, power
and machinery hours, and costs per acre on these farms indicated, as
1 R. T. Burdick, A New Technique for Field Crop Analysis. Colo. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Tech. Bui. 36. 1949.
20 BULLETIN No. 609 [March,
Table 6. — Effect of Size of Power-Drawn Machinery on Hours of Man
Labor, Hours of Tractor Use, and Operating Cost
of Power and Machinery
(Machinery operated in corn and soybean fields)
Northern two-thirds Southern third of
of state, 1948-1952 state, 1953
Item
Large Small Large Small
machines8 machines15 machines* machines6
Cornfields
Man hours per acre
6.
6
8.
5
4.
5
7.
4
Tractor hours per acre
5,
.2
7,
2
3
6
6
.2
Power and machinery cost per
acre0
313
.11
314,
20
313.
03
314,
90
Number of farms
30
41
4
11
Acres in corn per farm
112
61
158
39
Acres per field
32
20
33
17
Tillable acres per farm
248
143
528
187
Soybean fields
Man hours per acre
4
8
6
6
3.
3
5
4
Tractor hours per acre
3
,3
4,
8
2
6
5
Power and machinery cost per
acre0
3 9
.60
310
14
3 8.
66
311
.37
Number of farms
11
12
7
9
Acres in soybeans per farm. . .
52
31
106
33
Acres per field
26
28
21
16
Tillable acres per farm
277
204
475
168
• Large power-drawn machines are three-bottom plows, four-row cultivators, and combines
with cutter bars of seven feet or longer.
b Small power-drawn machines are two-bottom plows, two-row cultivators, and combines
with cutter bars of less than seven feet.
c Includes the cost of tractors and power-drawn machinery.
might reasonably be expected, that the direct man hours and tractor
hours per acre were less on farms with the larger field machinery
(Table 6). On farms in the northern two-thirds of Illinois with three-
bottom plows, four-row cultivators, and two-row pickers 6.6 hours
of man labor and 5.2 hours of tractor use were required on corn. In
the same area on farms with two-bottom plows, two-row cultivators,
and one-row pickers 8.5 hours of man labor and 7.2 hours of tractor
use were needed on corn. In southern Illinois the differences on corn
were similar. In both areas the differences between hours of man
labor and tractor use for farms using large and small machines on soy-
beans were similar to those on corn.
Lower per-acre costs for power and machinery on farms having
larger machines are due in part to fewer hours of tractor use per acre
and in part to the fact that these power and machine units were used
on larger acreages. Although these larger machines represent a larger
1957] FIELD CROP COSTS AND RETURNS 21
total investment and cost, many of these annual costs do not vary with
use; therefore, the costs per acre tend to become less as the acres
covered increase.
Other factors important in explaining differences in the time re-
quired for field operations tended to be associated with the size of
machinery. For instance, to illustrate the effect of length of field and
turning time, a cross tabulation of labor and power used in fields of
different sizes was tried. This tabulation by size of field also tended to
sort large machines with large fields and smaller machines with small
fields.
Results of Study as Guide to Crop Selection
Total returns most important consideration
Farmers who do not have detailed cost records of their own may
find the figures in Table 2 and Tables 11-16 in the Appendix very help-
ful when they come to select the crops they want to grow from among
those studied during 1948-1954. Comparisons of costs, returns, and net
returns for these crops show that returns vary more than costs and that
net returns tended to vary directly with total returns (Table 2). These
comparisons suggest that total returns are the most important item to
consider when crops are to be chosen from among those studied here.
Using the figures in this bulletin, farmers may make their choices by
comparing returns of various crops above the direct cost of commer-
cial fertilizers and other variable cost items affecting yield. They can
make these comparisons in terms of the cash value of the alternative
crops, as was done here, or in terms of the quantity of feed each can
be expected to produce.
Cosf of producing feed nutrients important to
livestock farmers
The figures on quantities produced and costs of producing feed
nutrients (Table 3) suggest that livestock farmers may wish to weigh
very carefully considerations other than the cash value of the crops they
produce. When the crops are fed on the farm, growing those which
produce a large quantity of feed at a low cost per unit may prove more
profitable than growing those having a higher cash value.
There is a limit, however, to the use of such a test as a guide to
crop selection, especially when the choice is between a roughage and
a concentrate feed. Some livestock, such as hogs, can use roughages
only to a limited extent. Even forage-consuming livestock, such as
22 BULLETIN No. 609 [March,
dairy cattle, if the milk production level is maintained, need more than
one total digestible nutrient from hay or silage to replace one total
digestible nutrient from grain concentrates at the usual feeding levels.
Seasonal requirements for labor and power a consideration
Seasonal requirements for labor and power are an important con-
sideration in crop selection. Little field work on crops is now done
without mechanical power, so a seasonal distribution of man labor on
crops also gives a picture of power use.
In general, the relative seasonality of labor used on crops is similar
in all areas of Illinois (Figs. 7 and 8). Many of the less permeable soils
of southern Illinois often cannot be worked as early in the spring as
the more permeable soils of northwestern Illinois, and therefore in
the years of the study the labor needed for corn and soybeans in
southern Illinois came somewhat later than in northern Illinois.
The difference between the areas in the distribution of labor on
hay is accounted for by differences in the nurse crop used. When the
legume was seeded with the small-grain crop in the same operation,
all labor was charged to the small-grain crop. In the southern area
where winter wheat was a nurse crop, seeding the legume was a second
operation and was charged to the legume crop. Much of the labor on
soybeans in late July and August was spent on hand roguing. The fall
labor spent on growing a crop was for plowing and disking.
The distribution of labor on these crops indicates not only when
the crops compete for labor, but also the extent to which they may
compete for land. For instance, fall-seeded winter wheat usually can-
not follow corn harvested as grain, because corn harvesting is usually
too late for wheat sowing.
The seasonality of labor needed by all crops often means that
livestock may be added to the farm organization to increase returns to
labor available on the farm.
Other determining factors
Crops selected for tillable land must be adapted to the combination
of physical, biological, and economic conditions on the farm. In farm
planning, the final standard for selecting crops in a rotation depends on
their ability to contribute to net farm income from both a short-time
and a long-time point of view.
To evaluate the contribution of individual crops to net farm income
requires a comparison, not of the average net return over all costs, but
1957}
FIELD CROP COSTS AND RETURNS
23
30
20
10
50
40
30
20
§ 10
3
C> 0
2 20
§
I '°
0
20
10
0
30
20
10
^HARVESTING
CORN SILAGE
SOYBEANS
OATS
MIXED HAY
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
Hours of man labor used to grow and harvest 10 acres of the prin-
cipal crops, Northwestern Area, 1949. Labor is shown by 28-day
periods. (Fig. 7)
24
BULLETIN No. 609
[March,
30
20
10
0
30
20
10
0
20
10
0
20
10
0
20
10
0
30
20
10
GROWING
CORN
Ix^ HARVESTING
CORN SILAGE
SOYBEANS
WINTER WHEAT
OATS
MIXED HAY
DEC
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV
Hours of man labor used to grow and harvest 1 0 acres of the prin-
cipal crops, Southern Area, 1953. Labor is shown by 28-day periods.
(Fig. 8)
1957} FIELD CROP COSTS AND RETURNS 25
the marginal or added return over the added direct costs. For this pur-
pose, the cost and return figures presented in this bulletin are inade-
quate for two reasons. First, the cost items in the cost summary (Table
2 or Tables 11-16 in the Appendix) include an allocation of overhead
costs which are not relevant to marginal cost comparisons. The uniform
cost rates charged for labor and power and machinery may not reflect
the added direct costs of these items to the alternative crops. For
instance, when the oats crop is planted, there may be no other oppor-
tunity for the labor and power and machinery to be used on the farm.
Hence the added costs for growing oats would be only the added direct
expenses and would not include any of the overhead or fixed costs.
Second, the returns may be incomplete in that by-products and con-
tributions to other enterprises have not been credited fully. No way
has been found to credit oats for their value as a nurse crop for
legume seedings, or to credit hay and pasture for their value in con-
trolling erosion and maintaining fertility.
In Illinois, the choice of crops can be simplified by classifying crops
into cultivated crops, small grains or nurse crops, and hay and pasture
crops. Within these classes the figures presented here are most useful
in selecting high-profit crops either in terms of cash income or feed for
livestock. Among cultivated crops, on the basis of the figures given by
this study, the choice is between corn grain, corn silage, and soybeans.
Among small grains, the choice is between oats and wheat.
When the percentage of each class of crop to be grown on any farm
is to be decided, factors other than relative returns need to be con-
sidered. On rolling land subject to erosion, the percentage of land in
hay and pasture crops may depend on the soil type and the extent to
which the soil can be or is conserved by field practices or mechanical
structures. On soils less subject to erosion, the percentage of hay and
pastures grown rests on the need to maintain fertility, the relative
costs of commercial fertilizers, and the forage requirements of the
livestock in the farm organization. The percentage of small grains for
nurse crops will tend to be limited by the seeding needs of hay and
pasture crops.
II — TRENDS IN COSTS AND RETURNS, 1921-1952
The seven-year period, 1948-1954, covered by this study is not
long enough to permit analysis of general trends in costs and returns.
To bring out some important conclusions concerning these trends,
supplementary data from earlier studies made in Champaign and Piatt
counties have been used.
26 BULLETIN No. 609 [March,
Labor Required Declined
The man labor used per acre for crop production went down over
50 percent during the last 30 years. The figures indicate that in Cham-
paign and Piatt counties in 1921-1922 it took 14.4 hours of man labor
to grow and harvest an acre of corn (Table 7). In central Illinois, the
area most comparable to the Champaign-Piatt county area, 6.5 man
hours were used in 1951-1952. Man hours for soybeans declined from
13 to 5.9; for winter wheat from 12.3 to 3.4; and oats from 6.7 to 3.1.
Table 7. — Average Man Hours Required to Produce Some Major Crops
in Central Illinois in Recent and in Past Years
Cass, Logan,
Menard, Champaign and Piatt counties
Item Morgan, and
Sangamon 1941-1942 1931-1932 1921-1922
counties,
1951-1952
Corn
Man hours per acre 6.5 7.7 11.9 14.4
Yield per acre, bushels 69.8 71.9 53.5 48.8
Minutes of labor per bushel 5.6 6.4 13.3 17.7
Percent of the corn crop:
Machine husked 100 93 13 0
Hand husked 0 7 87 100
Soybeans
Man hours per acre 5.9 4.2 7.2 13. 0»
Yield per acre, bushels 31.2 27.3 27.3 16.4
Minutes of labor per bushel 11.3 9.2 15.8 47.6
Percent of soybean crop:
Cultivated 100 18 0 0
Combined 100 100 74 0
Threshed 0 0 26 100
Winter wheat
Man hours per acre 3.4 3.8b 6.0 12.3
Yield per acre, bushels 27.7 25.2 25.9 22.8
Minutes of labor per bushel 7.4 9.0 13.9 32.4
Percent of wheat crop:
Combined 100 100 52 0
Threshed 0 0 48 100
Oats
Man hours per acre 3.1 4.0 6.8 6.7
Yield per acre, bushels 44.6 43.3 49.2 32.2
Minutes of labor per bushel 4.2 5.5 8.3 12.5
Percent of oat crop:
Combined 100 73 9 0
Threshed 0 27 91 100
« 1922-1923 data used since data for 1921 not available.
b 1940-1941 data used since in 1942 only four farms harvested wheat due to severe
winter killing that year.
1957] FIELD CROP COSTS AND RETURNS 27
Changes in the methods used in growing and harvesting are re-
sponsible for the decreases in the direct labor used per acre. In the
early years, the reduction in hours of labor was associated with the
change from horse-drawn to mechanical-powered field implements and
with the adoption of mechanical harvesting machines. In the later years,
the increase in size of power units that can be used to propel larger
power-drawn machinery in multiple or individual units has been
responsible for an even further reduction in the time spent on crops.
Much of the time-reducing possibilities of mechanical power and
field harvesting machines was realized in the early 1940's. Part of the
time thus saved is shown by the amount of the crop harvested by the
alternative methods of harvest used on each crop (Table 7). The man
hours per acre for soybeans have increased slightly since 1941-1942.
The change from drilling to rowing and cultivating the crop are be-
lieved to be responsible for this increase.
The minutes of labor used per bushel show a proportionately
greater decline than the man hours per acre. At the same time that man
hours needed per acre were being reduced, yields per acre were in-
creasing. This increase in yields resulted in the larger decline in time
spent per bushel.
Operating Costs per Acre Increased
Operating costs for labor, capital items, and taxes per acre in-
creased in actual and adjusted terms during the 30-year period. In
1921-1922 actual operating costs averaged $16.04 per acre for corn;
in 1951-1952 they averaged $41.70 per acre (Table 8). Actual costs for
soybeans, winter wheat, and oats also increased.
Prices of items used in production changed greatly during the
period. And the form of the items changed. Tractor power replaced
horse labor. Then tractors changed in form — from the four-wheel
to the three-wheel row-crop type. They also changed in size and
capacity. Mechanical power and machinery substituted for man labor
and also increased the timeliness of operations.
To compare operating costs over the 30-year period, adjustments
must be made for changes in prices farmers paid for production items.
An imperfect way to make this adjustment is to inflate all costs to
the 1951-1952 level by the index of prices farmers paid.
The adjusted operating costs per acre for corn declined from
$34.40 an acre in 1921-1922 to $27.16 in 1941-1942 and then increased
to $41.70 in 1951-1952 (Table 8). Trends in adjusted operating costs
for soybeans, winter wheat, and oats were similar.
28 BULLETIN No. 609 [March,
Table 8. — Average Operating Cost of Producing Some Major Crops in
Central Illinois in Recent and in Past Years
Item
Cass, Logan,
Menard,
Champaign and Piatt counties
Sangamon
counties
1951-1952
1941-1942
1931-1932
1921-1922
Operating cost per acre*
Corn
. . #41 . 70
#13.80
27.16
71.9
# .38
#11.34
22.30
27.3
# .82
it
# 8.64°
18.69
25.2
# .74
# 8.71
17.13
43.3
# .40
#11.07
28.44
53.5
# .53
# 9.92
25.36
27.3
# .93
# 9.20
23.68
25.9
# .91
# 8.02
20.54
49.2
# .42
#16.04
34.40
48.8
# .70
#16.69
34.50
16.4
#2.10
#16.92
36.30
22.8
# 1.59
# 8.73
18.72
32.2
# .58
Operating cost adjusted for
changes in price levelb. .
Yield per acre, bushels
. . 69 8
Adjusted operating cost
per bushel
..$ .60
Operating cost per acrea
Soybeans
. . #30.22
Operating cost adjusted for
changes in price levelb. .
Yield per acre, bushels
. . 31 2
Adjusted operating cost
per bushel
..$ .97
Operating cost per acre*
Winter whei
. . #26.65
Operating cost adjusted for
changes in price levelb. .
Yield per acre
.. 27.7
Adjusted operating cost
per bushel
. . $ .96
Operating cost per acrett
Oats
. . #21 20
Operating cost adjusted for
changes in price levelb. .
Yield per acre, bushels
. . 44.6
Adjusted operating cost
per bushel
..$ .48
a Total labor, capital, and tax charges are included ; interest on investment in land and
management charge are excluded.
" Cost adjusted to 1951-1952 level by the index of prices paid by farmers for production
items, U. S. Department of Agriculture.
« Data for 1940-1941.
The decline in total operating costs per acre through 1941-1942
was caused by a substantial reduction in man and horse labor with a
relatively small increase in power and machinery expenses. The
increase in costs for 1951-1952 arose primarily from increased ex-
penses for fertilizers and power and machinery. The increase in costs
of power and machinery has been accompanied by only a small de-
crease in hours of labor as compared with the decrease that occurred
in the earlier years. It is probable that the costs of mechanization in
this later period may reflect expenditures for machines and accessories
1957] FIELD CROP COSTS AND RETURNS 29
which reduce the physical effort required by various operations rather
than the hours of labor required.
The adjusted gross operating costs per bushel declined substantially
from 1921-1922 through 1941-1942, and then by 1951-1952 increased
for all crops (Table 8). This decline and increase in per-bushel costs
is more pronounced than the changes in per-acre costs, because yields
increased greatly in the first 20 years of the period and changed less in
the last 10 years.
In these two areas, crop-yield trends on cost-account farms were
similar to those reported by the Crop Reporting Service (Table 9).
The two-year average yield on cost-account farms was higher, however.
The yields of all major crops have increased. Corn and soybeans
showed the greatest relative increase, while oats and wheat showed the
Table 9. — Trends in Average Yields of Some Major Crops in Recent
and in Past Years in Central Illinois
(Yields on cost-account farms in this series of cost studies compared with yields re-
ported by crop reporters)
Yields reported by crop reporters*
Yields on
Years cost-account Champaign and Cass, Logan, Menard,
farms Piatt counties Morgan, and
Sangamon counties
bu. bu. bu.
Corn
1951-1952 69.8 61.5 58.9
1941-1942 71.9 61.8 57.2
1931-1932 53.5 43.0 42.1
1921-1922 48.8 36.9 32.0
Soybeans
1951-1952 31.2 28.5 28.4
1941-1942 27.3 24.0 20.7
1931-1932 27.3 21.2 19.8
1922-1925 16.4 (b) (»>)
Oats
1951-1952 44.6 38.0 38.3
1941-1942 43.3 42.0 38.3
1931-1932 49.2 41.0 37.0
1921-1922 32.2 26.5 24.6
Winter wheat
1951-1952 27.7 26.0 23.6
1940-1941 25.2 24.5 24.9
1931-1932 25.9 21.8 20.1
1921-1922 22.8 21.2 21.9
* County yields as reported to the Illinois Cooperative Crop Reporting Service.
b Yields not reported.
30 BULLETIN No. 609 [March,
least. The increase in yields was the result of improved varieties of
crops, increased use of fertilizers, better control of weeds, insects, and
diseases, and better tillage and harvesting operations.
The increase in the adjusted operating costs per acre and per
bushel in 1951-1952 without an increase in crop yields over those re-
ported in 1941-1942 is difficult to explain. It suggests that perhaps the
additional fertilizer has been for fertility maintenance and build up to
offset the declining native fertility of the soil. It also suggests that some
of the additional fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, and larger power
and machines may have been uneconomic in that additional costs were
greater than additional returns.
Cash Costs Increased
Cash outlays for producing field crops have increased over the
30-year period. Substituting mechanical power for man and horse
labor has increased the direct cash outlays for the original investment
in items of power and machinery and for their operating expenses in
the forms of gasoline, oil, repair parts, and repair labor. In central
Illinois the annual cash operating costs of growing and harvesting
Table 10. — Cash, Depreciation, Interest, and Noncash Costs per Acre of
Growing and Harvesting Corn Grain, Central Illinois, 1951-1952
Item
Current
cash
Deprecia-
tion
charges*
Interest Q.V
Total of
all costs
Land
Taxes
. .$ 2.80
$ 2.80
Interest . . . . .
$11.57
11.57
Labor
Hired
. . 2 . 24
2.24
Unpaid operator and
family
$ 6.22
6.22
Capital
Power
3.59
$ 2.22
.55
6.36
Machinery
. . 1.98
4.83
1.19
8.00
Soil improvements
. . 2.40
2.66
2.77
7.83
Seed and other crop
expense
2.34
2.34
Buildings
.64
1.20
.68
2.52
General farm expense. .
Total
. . 1.67
..$17.66
.85
$11.76
.76
$14.75 $8.99
3.28
$53.16
Percent of total
. . 33 . 2
22.1
27.8 16.9
100.0
• This is a prepaid cash cost and it represents that part of the cost allocated to this
particular accounting year.
1957] FIELD CROP COSTS AND RETURNS 31
an acre of corn were 33.2 percent of the total costs (Table 10). The
prepaid cash or depreciation charges were 22.1 percent of the total costs.
Wilcox and Case1 estimated that in 1913-1915 the direct cash
outlay was 14.1 percent and the cash reserve for depreciation was 4.3
percent of the total costs of producing an acre of corn in central
Illinois. They also estimated that in 1935-1937 the direct cash outlay
had risen to 28.3 percent and the necessary reserve to meet depreciation
had risen to 8 percent of the total.
It should be recognized that if part of investment capital is bor-
rowed, then a part of the interest on investment also becomes a cash
cost rather than merely an opportunity cost.
SUMMARY
This bulletin summarizes and analyzes two years of crop costs and
returns for each of four areas of Illinois — western, northwestern,
central, and southern — for the period 1948-1954.
Corn gave the greatest net returns per acre in the areas of the
northern two-thirds of Illinois. Total returns were found to indicate
the relative profitability of the crops studied almost as well as net
returns.
Feed nutrients from corn, both as grain and silage, and from hay
were produced at the lowest cost per 100 pounds. When livestock
farmers select rotations, they may consider feed crops that produce
high yields and feed at a low cost per unit.
The crop cost-and-return data varied widely from farm to farm.
Farm-to-farm differences arise from differences in the quantity and
quality of the resources employed, including the management of the
operator. Part of the differences reflected differences in the soil and
climate between areas. And part of the variations reflected year-to-year
changes in yields, product prices, and cost items.
Yield per acre stood out as the most important factor affecting the
cost of producing a bushel or a ton of crops. A large part of the costs
per acre do not vary with yield. A large yield was necessary on all
crops to meet the cost of production. Yield-increasing practices can
be evaluated by determining whether the value of the additional yield
is greater than the cost of the practice.
Seasonal labor and power requirements for crops were similar in
all areas of the state.
1 R. H. Wilcox and H. C. M. Case. Twenty-five Years of Illinois Crop
Costs, '1913-1937. 111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 467, pp. 388-9. 1940.
32 BULLETIN No. 609 [March,
The data provided measures of the relative profitability of alterna-
tive crops as a guide to crop selection. However, final consideration
in selecting crops to be included in a crop rotation rests upon the
contribution of the crop to net farm income. Such selection often
requires data and analysis beyond that presented in this bulletin.
The data confirmed the expectation that the use of large power-
drawn field machines materially cuts down the number of man hours
required per acre.
In the 30-year period, 1921-1952, labor requirements per acre were
reduced 50 percent on major grain crops. The total actual and adjusted
operating costs per acre were higher in 1951-1952 than in previous
years. Yields of all crops have increased materially. Cash outlays for
annual operating expenses and depreciation per acre for producing corn
have more than doubled during this period.
APPENDIX
Methods of compiling cost and return data
All costs in this bulletin are expressed in monetary terms, even
though some cost items involve little cash outlay. The reduction of
costs to a common basis is necessary because farmers use resources
in different forms. Physical costs for man hours, tractor hours, and
truck miles are given because they are useful in farm planning. The
tables are so arranged that other cost rates for hours of labor, hours
of tractor use, seed, fertilizer or manure may be substituted for those
used here. It is thus possible on the basis of these data to determine
how selected costs of production would vary under different price
levels from period to period or year to year.
The method used to charge noncash cost is often called the "alterna-
tive price" system. The alternative price refers to the price that could
have been obtained for commodities or labor used in production if
they had been used in the next best alternative open at the time. For
example, in charging unpaid labor of operator or his family on crops,
the wage paid for hired labor in the local area was used, for the
operator or his family could have received that wage for performing
the same type of manual labor in the community at that time.
Items of cost
The items of cost for production of individual crops are sum-
marized under four heads: land, labor, capital, and management.
The land charge was 4 percent interest on the current value of
1957] FIELD CROP COSTS AND RETURNS 33
bare land plus the real estate taxes. From 1948 to 1952, the current
value was assigned to land according to the soil productivity rating by
adjusting a regressive relationship between actual land-sale prices and
soil-productivity ratings according to the U. S. Department of Agri-
culture land-value index. After 1952, the adjusted regression between
soil productivity and earned value of land for 1950-1951 on Farm-
Bureau Farm-Management Service farms was used to assign current
land values.
To determine the soil productivity rating of land for each crop, a
soil survey was made on each field. The rating was based on the scale
established by the soil survey division of the Agronomy Department of
the University of Illinois. In this scale, the most productive soils in the
state have been given a rating, or index, of 100 and the least productive
a rating of 5. These ratings indicate the ability of the soil to grow
crops under a low level of management.
The labor charge was based on a daily record kept on each
farm, showing in detail the task performed, the time used, and who
did the work. The labor charge on crops included the cost of hired
labor, the proportional share for labor of the cost of hired custom
work, and the charges for the labor of the operator, unpaid family
labor, and exchange labor received. The charge for unpaid labor was
computed at the average hourly rate for hired men working eight
months or more on farms in the study.
The hourly rate for hired workers was computed by dividing cash
wages plus social security plus cost of board furnished, or plus market
value of feed and farm-raised food furnished, by total of hours
worked. The cost of housing and other buildings furnished to labor
was included in the building charge.
The labor charge made against any crop enterprise was of two
kinds — direct and indirect. Direct labor on crops was the time spent
in growing, harvesting, storing, and marketing the crop. Indirect labor
on crops was an allocation of the time spent servicing and repairing
power units, machinery, equipment, and buildings; hauling manure;
and on general farm upkeep. The labor on these various tasks was
allocated as indirect labor in exactly the same way as the capital
charges on these items. For example, labor on the combine was dis-
tributed to oats, wheat, and soybeans on the basis of acres of these
crops harvested by the combine.
34 BULLETIN No. 609 [March,
The capital charge was itemized under nine headings: tractor,
truck, other machinery, manure, other fertilizers, seed, other crop
expense, buildings, and general farm expense.
The truck, tractor, and other machinery charges included the cost
of fuel and oil, depreciation, insurance, interest at 5 percent on begin-
ning inventory value, and repairs. The proportional share for power and
machinery of the cost of custom work hired and machine hire were
included. Power and machinery received in exchange were included at
the average rates of cost for those items in the area.
Daily records on each farm (similar to the labor records) provided
information on tractor hours and truck miles used on each crop. Each
crop was charged at the average rate times the amount of use of each
power unit.
Separate accounts were kept for each kind of crop machinery, such
as general crop machinery, corn machinery and hay machinery, and for
certain individual machines such as combines, corn pickers, forage
harvesters, and balers. The expenses of the specialized crop machinery
were distributed to the crops by a simple division of the expense of
each machine or group of machines by the number of acres on which
the machine or machines were used. The expense of general crop ma-
chinery — plows, disks, harrows, and similar implements used on
several crops — was distributed among the crops on a weighted-acre
basis that represented the average comparative use of the machinery
on each crop. The unit weight used for the important crops was: corn,
10; soybeans, 10; oats, 3; wheat, 10; and fall plowing, 6. In all cases
where a machine was used in custom or exchange work off the farm,
the acres covered were included in the acreage basis for expense
distribution.
The costs of operating power and machinery were allocated to the
crop as direct and indirect costs. The direct costs were those incurred
by putting in, harvesting, and marketing a crop. Indirect costs were
mainly for the use of power and machinery for general farm upkeep,
including tractor, truck, and machine hours used in hauling manure,
applying permanent land improvements, grading roads, mowing fence
rows, and performing other like tasks. The allocation of the costs of
these indirect uses of power and machinery was made on the same
basis as the allocation of the costs of the items on which the power
and machines were used; that is, tractor hours spent on hauling manure
were allocated to the crops on the same basis as were the manure
charges.
1957] FIELD CROP COSTS AND RETURNS 35
The manure charge included the value of barnyard manure applied
to the land. Manure was valued at $2.00 a load for 1948 to 1950; $3.00
a load in 1951; and $4.00 a load for 1952-1954. Manure applied during
the year was charged off in that year to all crop acres regardless of
where it was applied, and the charge distributed on a weighted-acre
basis. Each crop acre was given a weight in units intended to represent
the proportion of plant nutrients removed by each crop. These weights
were: corn, 65; oats, 5; wheat, 20; soybeans, 20; and rotated pasture
and hay, 20.
The other fertilizer charge included the cost of purchased commer-
cial fertilizers; depreciation on limestone and rock phosphate; deprecia-
tion on land improvements such as tiling, terraces and waterways; and
costs of soil testing. Depreciation on limestone and rock phosphate was
distributed to the crop acres on the same weighted-acre basis as the
manure charge. Depreciation on land improvements was distributed
uniformly for all crop acres. Commercial fertilizers were charged to the
crop where they were applied. Fall applications of fertilizer were
charged to the crop harvested the next season.
The seed charge includes the cost of purchased seeds, or the
current price of home-grown seed plus the costs of seed treatment. The
cost of seed for a mixed legume-hay crop was charged equally over a
2- or 3-year period since the seeding usually remained for those times.
Other-crop-expense charge included charges for insurance on stored
grain, insurance against hail, weed and insect sprays, and miscellaneous
storage charges.
The buildings charge for crops included repairs, depreciation,
fire and windstorm insurance, and interest at 4 percent on the beginning
inventory value of buildings used for storing crops and housing power
units, machinery, and equipment used in producing the crop. Building
costs were allocated on the basis of space used by crop, machine, or item
housed. The cost of buildings used to store the crops was a direct cost.
The building expense chargeable for storing machinery and equip-
ment was distributed in two ways. First, the building expenses for all
specialized crop machinery were summed and distributed to each crop
on the basis of direct tractor hours performed on the crops. Second, the
building expenses on other machines, such as tractors, trucks, farm
share of auto, and small tools used on all productive enterprises were
distributed to productive crops and livestock on the basis of amount of
36 BULLETIN No. 609 [March,
direct man hours. The hired man's house and other nonassignable build-
ing expenses were distributed to all enterprises also on the basis of
direct man hours spent on productive enterprises.
The general- farm- expense charge included miscellaneous ex-
penditures, such as farm share of auto expense, taxes and interest
charges on land in the farmstead, roads and lanes, farm organization
dues, telephone, electricity, accounting fees, farm magazine subscrip-
tions, and other expenditures which could not be allocated directly to
any of the other accounts. The costs of these general overhead items
were added and distributed to all crop and livestock enterprises on the
basis of the amounts of direct labor used by the enterprises.
A management charge for the operator was included as a cost
item. The management charge for the total farm was computed at
7 percent of the adjusted farm returns — gross farm returns less pur-
chases of feed and feeder stock. This 7 percent charge was the one
commonly made by Illinois commercial farm managers. The manage-
ment charge for each farm was adjusted for quality of management by
an index of the three-year average (two years prior to the year of the
study plus the year of the study) of rate earned on investment of all
farms in the study. This adjusted management charge was allocated to
productive enterprises on the basis of total costs other than management.
Returns
The prices of grains and hay used to determine the value produced
represent the average crop-year prices received in the area studied. The
pastures and straw utilized were included as part of returns and valued
at 12 to 13 cents per pasture day and $2.00 to $4.00 per ton of loose
straw in the field, since cost of labor and machinery for harvesting was
not charged against the small-grain crop.
1957}
FIELD CROP COSTS AND RETURNS
37
Table 11. — CORN: Annual Costs" and Returns per Acre
(Four areas, 1948-1954)
Western
Northwestern
Central
Southern
1948
1949
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954b
Number of farms
38
32
36
39
40
35
41
45
Acres in crops per farm. .
85.3
90.2
54.0
50.
2
96.
5
93,
0
51.6
61.4
Yield per acre, bushels. . .
78.5
65.0
76.6
66
6
69
,7
69
,8
46.5
16.0
Labor and power per acre
Man hours, direct
8.0
7.2
9.2
8.
0
6.
6
6
5
6.4
6.9
Man hours, indirect . . .
5.1
5.1
7.5
7.
4
3
9
4
,1
4.1
4.1
Tractor hours, direct. .
6.6
6.0
7.3
6.
8
5.
6
5.
5
5.2
5.0
Tractor hours, indirect
1.4
1.2
1.8
2.
1
,7
.7
1.1
1.0
Truck miles, direct. . . .
.2
.1
.3
1
9
6
.7
1.3
Truck miles, indirect . .
.4
1.7
2.2
9
s!
3
4
8
3.9
4.6
Costs per acre
Land
Taxes
3 1.96
$ 2.39
3 2.19
3 2,
4Q
3 2,
76
3 2
,85
3 1.73
3 1.81
Interest, 4 percent. . . .
7.74
8.19
6.63
7.
05
11.
22
11
97
5.94
6.12
Total
9.70
10.58
8.82
9.
54
13.
98
14
82
7.67
7.93
Labor
10.05
8.82
10.26
9.
66
8.
24
8,
72
7.65
8.21
Capital
Tractor
6.40
7.02
8.38
8.
28
6
23
6
50
6.73
7.16
Truck
.15
.32
.39
19
74
.71
.44
.60
Other machinery
5.58
6.86
8.42
9]
70
7!
17
1.
38
7.66
8.44
Manure
3.61
3.43
7.69
9.
30
2.
44
3
15
6.78
6.46
Other fertilizers
2.64
3.29
4.52
5.
39
4.
58
5,
60
15.91
13.30
Seed
1.83
1.68
1.78
1,
79
1,
57
1
.72
1.65
1.62
Other crop expense. . . .
1.14
1.27
1.25
1,
80
75
64
.25
.33
Buildings
2.95
2.78
2.84
3.
53
2.
38
2.
68
2.19
1.27
General farm expense. .
2.38
2.42
2.77
2.
92
3
06
3
53
2.23
2.46
Total capital costs. .
26.68
29.07
38.04
42.
90
28.
92
31,
91
43.84
41.64
Management
2.72
2.38
2.69
3.
12
3.
12
2.
62
2.45
2.05
Total costs
49.15
50.85
59.81
65.
22
54,
26
58,
07
61.61
59.83
Net cost per bushel
3 .62
3 .78
3 .78
3 .
98
3 .
77
3 ,
81
3 1.31
3 2.94
Price per bushel
1.30
1.28
1.28
1.
63
1.
70
1
50
1.45
1.46
Returns per acre
Gross
Grain 8102.05
383.13
398.44
3108
.28
3118
.58
3104
.69
367 . 24
316.22
Pasture
.42
.04
.14
70
1
.32
.59
12.83«
Total
102.47
83.17
98.58
108
28
119
.28
106
.01
67.83
29.05
Net
53.32
32.32
38.77
43
.06
65
02
47
.94
6.22
-30.78
a Costs include growing, harvesting, storing, and marketing charges.
b In 1954 only, costs and returns per acre are for acres planted rather than acres har-
vested as corn grain. The yields, however, are on acres harvested.
c Returns from pasture include the value of silage harvested at $8.00 per ton.
38
BULLETIN No. 609
[March,
Table 12. — CORN SILAGE: Annual Costs" and Returns per Acre
(Northwestern and southern Illinois, 1949, 1950, and 1953)
Northwestern
1949
1950
Southern
1953
Number of farms 23 26 33
Acres in crops per farm 6.8 7.5 15.1
Yield per acre, tons 12.0 11.9 7.6
Labor and power per acre
Man hours, direct 15.9 14.4 11.7
Man hours, indirect 7.7 8.7 4.0
Tractor hours, direct 10.9 10.4 7.6
Tractor hours, indirect 2.0 2.3 1.0
Truck miles, direct .6 0 .8
Truck miles, indirect 1.9 .6 3.2
Costs per acre
Land
Taxes $2.11 $ 2.57 51.62
Interest, 4 percent 6.50 7.06 5.80
Total 8.61 9.63 7.42
Labor 14.89 14.79 11.60
Capital
Tractor 11.86 12.08 9.96
Truck 51 .10 .41
Other machinery 13.19 13.87 8.36
Manure 8.01 9.36 7.35
Other fertilizers 3.64 3.88 4.16
Seed 1.78 1.68 1.69
Other crop expense .31 1.27 .21
Buildings 9.26 11.36 2.39
General farm expense 4.19 4.30 3.64
Total capital costs 52.75 57.90 38.17
Management 3.64 4.05 2.30
Total costs 79.89 86.37 59.49
Net cost per ton 6 . 66 7 . 26 7 . 83
Costs include growing, harvesting, and storing charges.
j FIELD CROP COSTS AND RETURNS 39
Table 13. — SOYBEANS: Annual Costs" and Returns per Acre
(Three areas, 1948-1954)
Western Central Southern
1948 1949 1951 1952 1953 1954
Number of farms 17 7 30 28 37 37
Acres in crop per farm 38.5 47.4 49.2 42.6 57.0 62.6
Yield per acre, bushels 28.8 31.6 32.5 29.8 15.9 11.7
Labor and power per acre
Man hours, direct 4.7 5.7 5.6 6.2 4.6 4.5
Man hours, indirect 2.6 3.1 2.3 2.7 2.1 1.9
Tractor hours, direct 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.4 3.9 3.8
Tractor hours, indirect 4 .4 .3 .3 .3 .3
Truck miles, direct 6 .9 3.3 3.1 1.4 1.6
Truck miles, indirect 2.2 3.8 4.7 4.7 2.2 2.2
Costs per acre
Taxes.. . $1.74 $2.23 $2.80 S2.90 $1.67 £1.90
Interest, 4 percent 7.97 8.65 11.42 12.11 5.87 6.15
Total 9.71 10.88 14.22 15.01 7.54 8.05
Labor 5.76 6.41 6.33 7.33 4.91 4.84
Capital
Tractor 3.46 3.93 4.25 4.77 4.64 5.11
Truck 27 1.07 .95 1.06 .34 .40
Other machinery 4.44 3.89 5.11 5.84 5.50 5.53
Manure .60 .45 .64 .86 1.80 1.68
Other fertilizers 56 .59 1.02 1.13 3.22 3.76
Seed 4.59 3.19 3.56 3.45 3.61 4.16
Other crop expense .62 .71 .54 .48 .14 .26
Buildings 1.03 1.13 .86 1.12 .65 .84
General farm expense 1.73 1.79 2.52 2.95 1.65 1.73
Total capital costs 17.30 16.75 19.45 21.66 21.55 23.47
Management 2.35 2.20 2.46 2.12 1.46 1.30
Total costs 35.12 36.24 42.46 46.12 35.46 37.66
Net cost per bushel £1.22 ?1.15 J51.31 £1.55 ?2.23 ? 3.22
Price per bushel 2.25 2.40 2.81 2.80 2.80 2.64
Returns per acre
Gross S64.71 5575.84 390.87 ?83.40 ?44.45 £30.85
Net 29.59 39.60 48.41 37.28 8.99 -6.81
• Costs include growing, harvesting, storing, and marketing charges.
40 BULLETIN No. 609
Table 14. — OATS: Annual Costs" and Returns per Acre
(Four areas, 1948-1954)
Western
Northwestern
Central
Southern
1948
1949
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
Number of farms
35
29
30
35
39
33
19
29
Acres in crops per farm. .
53.5
53
.1
37
.2
40.8
37
.9
35.2
19.8
20.1
Yield per acre, bushels. .
49.9
52
.5
49
.6
55.9
41
.5
48.1
28.3
44.5
Labor and power per acre
Man hours, direct. . . .
3.2
3
.0
4
.2
3.9
3
.0
3.2
3.6
3.9
Man hours, indirect. .
1.8
1
.7
1
.8
1.8
1
,7
1.9
1.4
1.5
Tractor hours, direct..
2.2
2
.3
3
.1
3.0
2
,2
2.2
2.9
3.1
Tractor hours, indirect
.4
,2
.3
.2
,1
.2
.1
.2
Truck miles, direct. . .
.5
.7
.5
.3
1
.3
1.7
.5
1.0
Truck miles, indirect. .
.5
1
,0
.9
.5
3
.0
3.2
2.1
1.9
Costs per acre
Land
Taxes
3 1.93
?9
•£ .
30
$ 2
28
3 2.48
3 2,
75
3 2.89
3 1.76
3 1.83
Interest, 4 percent . . .
7.75
8
41
6
.29
6.96
10
98
11.72
5.83
6.23
Total
9.68
10
71
8
57
9.44
13,
73
14.61
7.59
8.06
Labor
3.86
3.
41
3.
67
3.63
3.
70
4.21
3.70
4.01
Capital
Tractor
2.55
2.
54
2
.64
2.93
2
.13
2.50
3.34
3.62
Truck
.24
27
18
.12
50
.69
.34
.28
Other machinery
3.46
3'
18
5
,62
5.14
4!
J8
3.99
5.08
5.37
Manure
.29
24
,57
.69
19
.23
.54
.61
Other fertilizers
.51
1.
46
1
38
1.22
2.
29
2.34
2.43
3.31
Seed
3.40
2.
60
2.
30
2.24
1
99
2.70
2.71
2.89
Other crop expense. . .
.40
29
19
.49
,13
.18
.01
.05
Buildings
1.00
1.
00
1.
22
1.39
81
.94
1.72
1.24
General farm expense
1.20
95
1.
20
1.45
i!
39
1.58
1.10
1.30
Total capital costs . .
13.05
12.
53
15.
60
15.67
13.
71
15.15
17.27
18.67
Management
1.70
1.
42
1.
23
1.45
1.
93
1.62
1.13
1.13
Total costs
28.29
28.
07
29.
07
30.19
33.
07
35.59
29.69
31.87
Net cost per bushel ....
$ .53
3 .
50
3 .
51
3 .48
3 .
75
3 .71
3 1.03
3 .68
Price per bushel
.73
68
68
.84
85
.80
.70
.72
Returns per acre
Gross
Grain
236.43
235.
66
333.
60
346.85
335.
35
338 . 46
319.58
332.02
Straw
1.60
1.
49
3.
27
3.18
79
.32
.57
1.38
Pasture
.02
29
32
.11
I.
13
1.13
Total
38.05
37,
44
37,
19
50.14
37.
27
39.91
20.15
33.40
Net
9.76
9
37
8
12
19.95
4.
20
4.32
-9.54
1.53
Costs include growing, harvesting, storing, and marketing charges.
1957] FIELD CROP COSTS AND RETURNS 41
Table 15. — WINTER WHEAT: Annual Costs" and Returns per Acre
(Two areas, 1951-1954)
Central Southern
1951 1952 1953 1954
Number of farms 25 25 43 45
Acres in crops per farm 34.9 34.2 58.6 41.8
Yield per acre, bushels 20.5 34.9 29.8 35.0
Labor and power per acre
Man hours, direct 3.1 3.7 3.2 3.4
Man hours, indirect 1.7 1.3 2.0 2.7
Tractor hours, direct 2.3 2.6 2.5 2.7
Tractor hours, indirect .3 .3 .5 .5
Truck miles, direct 2.2 5.0 2.3 3.9
Truck miles, indirect 1.5 1.8 1.0 4.1
Costs per acre
Taxes . . ..32.78 3 2 . 98 3 1 . 69 $ 1 . 82
Interest, 4 percent 11.21 11.47 5.89 6.02
Total 13.99 14.45 7.58 7.84
Labor 3.88 4.62 3.76 4.65
Capital
Tractor 2.48 2.94 3.49 3.98
Truck 44 .91 .31 .84
Other machinery 3.63 5.01 5.72 6.77
Manure 69 .86 1.99 2.12
Other fertilizers 6.21 5.23 8.77 8.94
Seed 3.92 3.89 3.34 3.35
Other crop expense .22 .36 .99 1 .36
Buildings 22 .41 .48 1.19
General farm expense .63 1 . 06 .54 .68
Total capital costs 18.44 20.67 25.63 29.23
Management 2.28 1.98 1.49 1.47
Total costs 38.59 41.72 38.46 43.19
Net cost per bushel 55 1 . 79 3 1 . 13 3 1 . 20 3 1 .20
Price per bushel 2 . 25 2.10 1 . 75 1 . 98
Returns per acre
Gross
Grain 345.82 373.24 352.08 369.36
Straw 1.01 1.33 2.67 1.30
Pasture 90 .90 ....
Total 47.73 75.47 54.75 70.66
Net 9.14 33.75 16.29 27.47
* Costs include growing, harvesting, storing, and marketing charges.
42 BULLETIN No. 609
Table 16. — HAY: Annual Costs* and Returns per Acre
(Four areas, 1948-1953)
Western
Northwestern
Central
Soutl
Mix
ha-
!
•
Alfalfa
1948
Clover Mixed
1948 hay
1948
Mixed
alfalfa
1949
Mixed
alfalfa
1949
Mixed
alfalfa
1950
Mixed
hay
1951
Mixed
hay
1952
Number of farms
21
16.4
2.24
2.5
9.6
3.6
5.5
.7
.2
1.2
3 2.01
7.15
9.16
10.49
4.31
.34
6.80
1.29
.65
2.07
.07
.70
2.61
18.84
1.18
39.67
316.00
22.50
348.37
3.83
11
19.1
1.41
1.2
4.9
1.4
2.4
.4
.2
.4
3 1.93
8.11
10.04
5.12
2.00
.05
4.01
.84
.45
1.95
.07
1.20
3.89
14.46
1.73
31.35
315.91
18.00
324 . 53
2.47
6.44
33.44
2.09
12
19.7
1.40
1.7
5.5
2.7
2.9
.5
.1
.1
3 1.86
7.19
9.05
6.25
2.05
.02
3.91
1.29
.35
1.81
.03
.61
1.64
11.71
1.57
28.58
317.36
18.00
322.14
3.48
.79
26.41
-2.17
26
27
2
2
8
3
4
1
3 2
8
10
8
5
7
1
1
2
2
20
2
42
317
22
349.
4
54
11
9
21
1
2
0
4
6
1
3
54
32
86
92
16
29
15
34
22
25
06
97
25
69
00
47
19
50
70
20
28
18
71
29
29.0
2.33
2.1
7.1
3.6
4.2
.6
.2
1.4
3 2.27
6.64
8.91
6.89
4.57
.18
8.51
2.57
1.31
2.64
.02
.77
2.08
22.65
1.74
40.19
315.88
22.50
352.40
2.47
.73
55.60
15.41
29
30.9
2.54
1.9
7.4
3.4
4.6
.8
.5
.8
3 2.47
6.78
9.25
6.88
5.41
.15
9.67
2.97
1.42
2.50
.09
.52
2.57
25.30
2.14
43.57
315.70
22.50
357.02
3.63
.05
60.70
17.13
27
28.1
1.70
1.7
6.0
2.3
2.9
.3
.6
4.1
3 2.72
10.13
12.85
6.88
2.94
.53
8.91
.75
1.11
1.62
.03
1.09
3.07
20.05
2.32
42.10
322 . 50
21.00
336.33
3.63
.21
40.17
-1.93
22
26
1
1
5
2
2
3
3 2
10
13
7
2
8
1
2
2
19
1
42
320
22
338
4
3
46
4
5
69
4
.7
4
6
2
6
1
76
86
62
25
97
49
39
74
78
36
04
16
50
43
89
19
14
50
13
65
50
28
09
3J
1
1
4
2
2
l!
S 1
5
7
5
3.
S.'
1
1
2.
.5
1
22
1.6
36 . 8
cc * O 1
$41.3
3.0
.9
45.3
Acres in crop per farm ....
Times cut
Labor and power per acre
Tractor hours, direct . . .
Tractor hours, indirect .
Truck miles, direct
Truck miles, indirect. . .
Costs per acre
Land
Taxes
Total
Capital
Tractor
Truck
Other fertilizers
Seed
Buildings
General farm expense . . .
Total capital costs . . .
Total costs
Net cost per ton
Price per ton . ...
Returns per acre
Gross
Hay
Seed
Total
52.20
12.53
Net
a Costs include growing, harvesting,
and storing charges.
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11