Extension Circular 61-715 is report of irrigation filed demonstration in central and southwestern Nebraska 1960

Decker, J. F.

Mulliner, H. R.

English

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - LincolnDigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - LincolnHistorical Materials from University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension Extension1961EC612-715 1960 Report of Irrigation FieldDemonstrationsJ. F. DeckerH. R. MullinerFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/extensionhistThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Extension at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted forinclusion in Historical Materials from University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University ofNebraska - Lincoln.Decker, J. F. and Mulliner, H. R., "EC612-715 1960 Report of Irrigation Field Demonstrations" (1961). Historical Materials fromUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension. 3539.http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/extensionhist/3539E.C. 61-715 1960 Report of Irrigation Field Demonstrations Central and Southwestern Nebraska EXTENSION SERVICE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND U . S . DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING E . F . FROLIK. DEAN E . W . JANIKE, DIRECTOR J. F. Decker & H. R. Mulliner* SUMMARY 1. Cost of producing corn averaged $61.31 per acre or 64¢ per bushel on 15 irri-gated field units totaling 626 acres. 2. Net returns @ $1. 00 per bushel averaged $34. 49 per acre with a high of $60.89. 3. Yield per acre was the most important factor affecting net returns . The five high net return group1 averaging $43.48 per acre, averaged 117 bushels, compared with 70. 7 bushels for the low return group which reported only $15. 00 net return per acre. 4. Average fertilizer use was 119 pounds of nitrogen and 13 pounds of P205. 5. Average water use was 18.32 acre inches per acre . Labor in water appli-c;:ation averaged . 63 hours per acre, per irrigation. Average water cost was 83¢ per acre inch. This does not include application labor. 6. Based upon relative percent of production costs; labor, machinery and power rated highest with 29. 7o/o1 followed in order by irrigation at 26. Oo/o, fertilizer 21. 5%, land 18. Oo/o, and 4. 8o/o for other costs. 7. Net live-weight beef gains of 532 and 588 pounds per acre were reported by Harlan and Webster County pasture units, respectively. 8. Sugar beets @ 20. 08 tons per acre showed a net return of $106. 00 per acre, to lead all field units . 9. Five tons of barnyard manure adequately replaced zinc on a sandy land unit in Harlan County . 10. Nine pounds of zinc increased corn yields 15 bushels per acre on sandy soil in Hall County. 11. Irrigation lateral loss was 5% in a 2200 foot lateral in Hall County. 12. No significant yield difference was observed in dry, liquid, or gas fertilizer applied to grain sorghum in the irrigation water -- Merrick County. 13. Irrigation intake rate increased 26% in one trial by planting corn with mini-mum tillage method in Kearney County. *District Extension Irrigationists at St. Paul and Hastings, Nebraska, respec-tively. Special credit is due the cooperating farmers and county agents of the several counties involved in this report. Valued assistance was rendered by Work Unit Con-servationists. INTRODUCTION Irrigated field units have been used effectively as irrigation demonstrations in central and southwestern Nebraska for the past three years. They were selected by county Extension agents as physical demonstrations on special development or pro-duction problems with consideration for spread of influence in the community. Operation of the irrigation demonstration unit is conducted by the farm operator. Technical service is available regarding special problems. Results reported are based upon practical field operations and are not to be inter-preted as controlled experiments. Single reports of special crops or enterprises are included to show actual performance under conditions experienced# with no inferrence as to how representative they might be . Contained in this circular are reports of 27 irrigated field demonstration units co-operating in the program in 1960. Distribution of the field units is shown in Figure 1. PHYSICAL DEMONSTRATIONS Soil and water resources were considered of primary importance on all field dem-onstrations. A determination of these resources received first consideration. Soils classification by the soil conservation service was basic and the cooperation of S.C. S. technicians was secured for problems involving land development. Complete engineering tests for water capacity and plant efficiency were made for all pump units . Soil and water interaction was determined by water intake and/ or distribution tests • Irrigation plans and recommendations for each unit were based upon the above data which are summarized in Table 1. Figure 1 - Distribution of Irrigated Field Demonstrations - 1960 3 Table 1 - Summary of Irrigated Field Units - Soils and Water Water Capacity Soil Water Supply Irrig. Inches Water' Total I Intake I County Source I Amountll Method Class per foot Inches Rate[1 Acres CORN FIELDS Chase Pump 560 Gravity Sandy Loam 1.5 9.0 0.40 80 Dundy (1) Pump 944 Sprinkler Sandy Loam 1.5 9.0 0.51 21 Dundy (2) Pump 1001 Sprinkler Sandy Loam 1.5 9.0 0.60 20 Dundy (3) Pump 800 Gravity Fine Sandy Loam 1. 75 10.0 0.32 56 Furnas F-C /.l. 4Q Gravity Silt Loam 2.00 11. 5 0.40 25 Harlan Pump 1140 Gravity Sandy Loam 1.5 9.0 0.40 6. 7 Hitchcock F-C 4Q Gravity Sandy Loam 1.5 9.0 0.60 10 Hall Pump 900 Pump Loamy Sand 1. 25 6.0 25 Hamilton Pump 1050 Pump Silt Loam 2.0 12.0 0.054 10 Kearney Pump 3Q Gravity Silt Loam 2.0 12.0 0.21 15 Merrick Pump 700 Gravity Loamy Sand 1.2 4. 8 15 Buffalo Pump 945 Gravity Silt Loam 2.0 12.0 0.11 85 Custer (1) Pump 705 Sprinkler Loamy Sand 1.3 7.5 0.42 60 Custer (2) Pump 1025 Gravity Fine Sandy Loam 1.5 9.0 0.175 52 Garfield NL-Irrig. 3Q Gravity Silt Loam 2.0 11.0 0.16 23 Howard (1) Pump 570 Gravity Very Fine Sandy Loam 2.0 12.0 0.50 60 Howard (2) Pump 955 Gravity Loamy Sand 1.3 7.0 1. 84 27 Sherman Pump 885 Gravity Silt Loam 2.0 11. 5 0.33 95 Valley Pump 528 Gravity Silt Loam 2.0 12.0 0.40 5.8 ~ Pump Units reported in gallons per minute, Canal flow Q (1Q = 450 gpm) ~ Acre inches per hour 1_ Frenchman-Cambridge Irrigation District Table 1 - Continued - with special crops Irrig. Soil County Crop un1 Method ClAss Acres Furnas Sugar Beets F-C 4Q Grav. Silt Loam 2.0 9.0 0.58 24 Harlan (3) Soybeans F-C 4Q Grav. Silt Loam 2.0 9.0 5 Harlan (4) New Alfalfa Pump 460 Grav. Silt Loam 2.0 12.0 0. 50 32 Perkins Gr. Sorghum Pump 800 Spr. Sandy Loam 1.5 7. 5 0.50 152 . Frontier Irrig. Past. Pump 500 St'r• Silt Loam 2.0 8.0 0 . .(0 17 Harlan (1) Irrig. Past. Pump 457 Spr-. Silt Loam 2.0 a.o 0.50 14.8 L~ Irrig. Past. Pump 1200 Grav. Silt Loam 2.0 8.0 0. 50 15 Webster Irrig. Past. Bostwick[.!_ 2Q Spr, Silt Loam 2.0 8.0 0.25 18 /J:... Bostwick Irrigation Di.atrict PRODUCTION AND NET RETURNS A summary of production and economic data is shown in Table 2. Economic data reported herein are a by-product of the physical demonstration. These data were supplied by field unit cooperators to county Extension agents of the respective counties. Cash costs were reported as supplied by cooperators. Annual fixed costs of irrigation were based on straight line depreciation plus interest at five percent. Land grading was charged at five percent and a personal tax estimate on irrigation plant and equipment was included. Machine, power, and labor costs were based upon machine costs reported by Nebraska Experiment Station Bulletin 419, 1952, adjusted upward by Dr. A. W. Epp, Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of Nebraska. Interest on real estate was charged at five percent applied to the estimated value of the land. An estimate of real estate tax was added. The data do not, however 1 include any portion for "overhead" expense. 4 Table 2 - Summary of Economic data and Production Factors, 15 Irrigated Corn Field Units - 1960 Item Av. of 15 5 High 5 Medium 5 Low A c res 626. 5 278.0 175.8 172 . 7 PL"oduction Bushels 60046 32053 15783 12210 Yield/ acre , bushel 95.8 117.0 89.7 70 . 7 Gross retum@ $1. 00/bu. $95.80 $117.00 $89.70 $70 . 70 Cost/acre $61. 31 $63.55 $62.90 $55.73 Net Return/acre $34.49 $53.45 $26. 80 $14 . 97 Labor, Machinery & Power $18 . 11 $19.16 $20.07 $14 . 71 Water 15.97 15.57 16. 69 15 . 86 Fertilizer 13.03 14.35 10.69 l 3.Z8 Land 11.04 11. 52 12.42 8.86 Other Costs 3.16 2.95 3.03 3 . 02 Cost/bushel of Corn .64 . 55 . 70 . 79 Cost/acre inch of Water . 83 .74 1. 19 . 76 Acre inches of Water 18. 32 20.20 12.75 20 . 90 Fertilizer/ acre 119-13-0 128-18-0 llQ-7-0 116-10-0 Economic Analysis Costs of producing corn averaged $61. 31 per acre on 15 irrigated fields located in 11 central and southwestern counties involving 626 acres of irrigated land. Costs ranged from $47. 86 to $76. 82 per acre. Costs per bushel averaged 64~, with a range from 49 to 87~. Net returns averaged $34. 49, with a high of $60. 89. Costs and net returns are shown graphically in Figure 2 for the 15 units, the five high net return units and the five low net return units. Net returns on the above groupings were $34.49, $53. 45, and $14. 97, respectively. Yield per acre was the most important factor affecting net returns. The five high net return group showed an average yield of 117 bushels per acre. This was 22 per-cent higher than the average and 65 percent greater than the five low net return group . The five high net return units used slightly more fertilizer than the average appli-cation of 119 pounds nitrogen and 13 pounds phosphate. Fertilizer investment averaged 19 percent greater than for the 15 unit average. Average irrigation water use was 18.32 acre inches per acre. The relative amount of irrigation water was apparently not a factor of high yields since the high and low net return groups received about equal amounts . A wide range in the amount of irrigation water was observed, namely from 4. 8 to 36 inches per acre. Water costs averaged 83~ per acre with a range from 30~ to $1. 47 per acre. Fixed costs and extent of water use were principal factors affecting water costs per acre inch. Labor in water application averaged . 63 hours per acre for each irrigation with a range from . 14 to 1. 5 hours. Land quality was apparently a factor affecting crop yields as reflected by land values and taxes. Land costs were 30 percent higher for the five high net return group than the five low net return group . Labor, machinery, and power represented the greatest proportion of production costs, at 29. 7 percent. On the basis of percent of costs, irrigation followed at 26 per-cent, fertilizer at 21. 5 percent, land, 18 percent, and other costs at 4. 8 percent. 5 P::l ~ u ~ ~ P::l p.. Ul ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~'igure 2 - Costs and Returns, Fifteen Corn Field Demonstration Units 40 30 Average 15 Units 53.45 Five High Net Returns Legend 6 14.97 Five Low Net Returns Net Returns In addition to the 15 corn units reported above, detailed information is available from 1960 on three irrigated pasture utilization units, one new pasture seeding and one unit each of sugar beets, soybeans, new alfalfa, and grain sorghum. The relative value of irrigated pasture as a high return crop under irrigation is indicated by the summary of pasture units in Table 3. As indicated, good irrigated pasture properly managed may be expected to yield a return of 500 to 600 pounds of live-weight beef per acre. On the basis of net returns per acre, a sugar beet field with a yield of 20. 08 tons per acre and net returns of $106. 00 received top rating. Harvest weights indicated a beet top yield of 12. 6 tons per acre, evaluated for this report at $2.00 per ton of beet silage which compares favorably with the customary formula of $1. 00 per beet ton. Cost of establishing new alfalfa was $28. 54 per acre, based on land preparation, seeding, seed costs, and phosphate fertilizer, prorated over a 6 year period. On contract with a dehydrator plant, this unit lacked only $3. 46 per acre of paying its way in the first year. Table 3 - Summary of Irrigated Pasture Utilization Description Acres Year Established Kind Livestock Grazing period days Gains per head Gains per acre Grain fed per day P ounds Est. pounds credit Net pasture gains per head per acre Gross pasture value @ $20.00/cwt Other Pasture Credit per acre Total Value per acre Webster County 18.0 1956 Grass-legume 74 steers 150 250 1028 /_}: 7. 3 107 143 588 117. 60 $117. 60 Harlan County 14.8 1959 Grass-legume 38 calves 139 243 . 7 625. 7 E 2.5 93 150.7 532 106. 40 37.1Js $143. 40 /_}: Estimated 8. 2 pounds of corn per pound of gain. 7. 3 pounds daily of ground ear corn. Feed requirements estimates by Nebraska Extension Animal Husbandry Depart-ment. /2 Estimated 6t 2 pounds of corn equivalent required per pound of gain at this level Oi feeding. Grain fed was ground milo, supplement, molasses, and ground corn cobs . f 3 Includes 108 pounds seed and . 68 tons of hay per acre. 7 Soybeans, at 27 bushel per acre showed a loss of $15. 45, and grain sorghum at 55. 1 bushels showed a loss of $3. 00 per acre at current prices. Neither of these two latter units were considered representative. The relatively low yield of soybeans, together with a high fertilizer cost, were responsible factors for the poor showing of soybeans. In respect to the sorghum field lack of adequate irrigation was primarily responsible for the poor yield of this unit. FIELD STUDIES AND DEMONSTRATIONS Sandy Land Management (Harlan County) Comparisons of starter fertilizer, starter fertilizer with zinc, and manure treat-ment were made with corn on sandy land in Harlan County. Materials used were 100 pounds per acre of 8-32-0, 6-24-0 + 7 percent zinc, and barnyard manure at five tons per acre. All treatments were made with 150 pounds of nitrogen. Yield comparisons made by weighing loads in the field direct from the picker were rather inconsistent, but indicated clearly that the manure treatment adequately re-placed zinc . At this demonstration and at a similar sandy land corn field in Hitchcock County, a July seeding of 16 pounds of Madison vetch per acre was made as a green manure crop for soil fertility comparisons the following year. (Hall County) Water losses in farm laterals, fertility plots, and using tensiometers as a guide for starting irrigation were demonstrated. The fertility plots on corn compared different rates of nitrogen, nitrogen and phos-phorous, nitrogen phosphorous potassium, and nitrogen phosphorous and trace ele-ments. The plots containing zinc gave an increase of 15 bushels per acre. Top yield was made from 93 pounds of nitrogen,. 32 pounds of phosphorous and 9 pounds of zinc. A yield of 98 bushels per acre was achieved with no fertilizer of any kind. This was probably due to carryover from previous years' fertilizer . Irrigation lateral losses were 5 percent from evaporation and percolation. Test was made on a lateral of 2200 feet in length, after the water had been running two days. This test was made on a Hall fine sandy loam soil . Dry, Liquid, and Gas Fertilizer in Irrigation Water (Merrick County) Liquid, gas and dry fertilizers were applied in the irrigation water to grain sor-ghum on a Cass loamy sand soil by gravity irrigation. Ninety pounds of NH3 was applied as a preplant, and then 10 pounds of N per acre was put in at 3 different irrigations. There was no apparent yield difference between any of the three fertilizer carriers. In fact, in this demonstration there was no in-crease in yields from the nitrogen added in the irrigation water over the plot which had only preplant fertilizer. This was apparently due to leaching. Irrigation Intake Rates Comparing Minimum Tillage and Conventional Planted Corn, Kearney and Hamilton Counties. Irrigation intake rates were taken in Kearney and Hamilton Counties on Holdredge silt loam soil. The checks were made in the first and second irrigations. The mini-mum tilled plots had no ground preparation prior to planting other than cutting stalks. The conventional plots were disked, plowed, disked, and harrowed before planting. One field showed an increase of irrigation intake of 26 percent in favor of minumum tillage, while the other showed no appreciable difference. 8 

EC612-715  1960 Report of Irrigation Field Demonstrations

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4536&amp;context=extensionhist

EC612-715 1960 Report of Irrigation Field Demonstrations

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska