According to conventional wisdom, low prices favor skip-row planting patterns while high prices favor solid planted cotton. Production costs have been trending upward for many years. Current high production costs have redefined the point at which a low price becomes a high price relative to skip-row versus solid planting pattern decisions. Growers considering a shift from solid to skip-row cotton must be able to produce high yields, more than 90% of the solid yield on a land acre basis.cotton, no-till yields, returns, Production Economics,

Cooke, Fred T., Jr.

McCarty, Will

Parvin, David W., Jr.

English

Research Papers in Economics

Copyright © November 1999 by D.W. Parvin.  All rights reserved.  Readers may make verbatim
copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright
notice appears on all such copies.
Mississippi State University Department of Agricultural Economics
Research Report 99-004 November 1999
The Impact of Current Cotton Price and Production Costs on Skip-Row Cotton
D.W. Parvin
Corresponding Authors
F.T. Cooke, Jr. and Will McCarty
Department of Agricultural Economics
Mississippi State University
P.O. Box 5187
Mississippi State, MS 39762
parvin@agecon.msstate.edu
Phone: (662)325-2045
Fax: (662)325-8777
Abstract
According to conventional wisdom, low prices favor skip-row planting patterns while high prices
favor solid planted cotton.  Production costs have been trending upward for many years. 
Current high production costs have redefined the point at which a low price becomes a high
price relative to skip-row versus solid planting pattern decisions.  Growers considering a shift
from solid to skip-row cotton must be able to produce high yields, more than 90% of the solid
yield on a land acre basis.
Keywords: cotton, no-till yields, returns2
Copyright © November 1999 by D.W. Parvin.  All rights reserved.  Readers may make verbatim
copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright
notice appears on all such copies.
The Impact of Current Cotton Price and 
Production Costs on Skip-Row Cotton
D. W. Parvin, Economist and Professor, MAFES/MSU
F. T. Cooke, Jr., Economist, DREC/MAFES/MSU
Will McCarty, Cotton Specialist, MSUES
Abstract
According to conventional wisdom, low prices favor skip-row planting patterns while high
prices favor solid planted cotton.  Production costs have been trending upward for many years. 
Current high production costs have redefined the point at which a low price becomes a high price
relative to skip-row versus solid planting pattern decisions.  Growers considering a shift from
solid to skip-row cotton must be able to produce high yields, more than 90% of the solid yield on
a land acre basis.
Introduction
The relationship between cotton price and production costs has changed considerably in
recent years.  In the past, the distinction between a cotton acre and a land acre was important in
an agronomic and economic sense.  While the agronomic relationships are still valid, the economic
distinction between a land acre and a cotton acre have vanished.  All yields, costs, and returns, in
this report, are reported on a land basis for dryland, or non-irrigated, cotton. 
Relative to solid planted 40-inch cotton, full-skip, usually denoted "2 x 1" , has an 80-inch
skip between the drills in the skip-row.  In other words, full-skip has an additional 40-inch skip for
every third unplanted row.  Narrow-skip planting pattern has a 64-inch skip between the drills in3
Copyright © November 1999 by D.W. Parvin.  All rights reserved.  Readers may make verbatim
copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright
notice appears on all such copies.
the skip-row, i.e., an additional 24-inch skip relative to solid planted but 16 inches less than a full
skip pattern.  
Solid cotton planted in 40-inch rows has 13,068 linear feet of row per acre while narrow-
skip has 10,052.3 linear feet of row per acre.  A narrow-skip pattern is 76.92 percent cotton
relative to solid planted cotton.  Materials applied “down the row” are 76.92 percent of the rate
applied to solid planted cotton.  Additionally, there is another important distinction.  One turn, or
round, through the field with a 4-row cotton picker in solid planted 40-inch cotton covers 320
inches.  One turn with the same picker adjusted to harvest narrow-skip, covers 416 inches of
width.  With narrow-skip, the performance rates for the cotton harvesting units (pickers, boll
buggies, and module builders) are improved so that their cost per acre is reduced.   For example,
the performance rate for a fully supported and efficient 4-row picker in solid planted cotton is
0.181 hours per acre [5].  The performance rate for the same picker in narrow-skip planted cotton
is 0.139 hours per acre.  One 4-row picker, boll buggy, module builder plus two tow tractors
costs more than $400,000.  Not only is harvest direct cost per acre ($37.38 [8, p. 9]) reduced as a
function of the change in performance rate, the potential exists to spread annual fixed cost over
additional acres so that the fixed cost per acre ($44.65 [8]) is also reduced.  If additional cotton
acres are not available and fixed cost per acre is not reduced, harvest is completed in fewer days. 
A faster (fewer total days) harvest (a type of earliness) increases realized yield and quality (price
[3, 5, 6, 10-15]).4
1Much heavier than Type III cotton soil.
Copyright © November 1999 by D.W. Parvin.  All rights reserved.  Readers may make verbatim
copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright
notice appears on all such copies.
In general, an acre of solid cotton exhibits higher yields than one acre of skip-row cotton. 
The narrower the skip, the closer the yield of skip-row cotton approaches the yield of solid
planted cotton.  Hence, narrow-skip exhibits higher yields than a full-skip pattern.  The question
is, at what range of prices of cotton does the difference in production costs and difference in
yields favor solid cotton and over what range of prices is skip-row preferred.
This report examines narrow-skip versus solid cotton. 
Yield
Most of the replicated research on skip-row planting patterns was conducted during the
early 1970's.   Table 1 summarizes five studies conducted by scientists at the Stoneville
experiment station [1, 2,  4, 7, 9].  Much of this research compared a full-skip pattern versus solid
planted cotton.  The reader is reminded that narrow-skip out-yields full-skip.  The 1969 study
indicates that skip-row cotton production on clay
1 soils is not efficient.  The Stoneville wide-bed
planting pattern, which is closer to narrow-skip than 2 x 1, yielded on average 96.04 percent of
solid.  The other studies ranged from 88-92 percent of solid.  
The Department of Agricultural Economics annual cost of producing cotton reports [8],
utilize a yield of 825 pounds of lint per acre for solid planted cotton versus 760 pounds per acre
for narrow-skip, or 92.12 percent of solid.5
Copyright © November 1999 by D.W. Parvin.  All rights reserved.  Readers may make verbatim
copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright
notice appears on all such copies.
Soil Type
The relationship between narrow-skip and solid yield is thought to vary from 92 to 96
percent of solid depending upon the type of cotton soil.  Table 2 summarizes the three cotton soils
found in the Delta area of Mississippi and their relative average yields.  These soils vary by texture
and range from excellent, good, to fair in terms of internal and surface drainage.  The reader is
cautioned that while the percent of solid yield increases as soil productivity decreases, the
absolute yield decreases.  All of the yields in Table 2 are relative to a solid yield of 825 pounds of
lint per acre on cotton soil type I (deep silt loam).  Individual grower yields and relationships will
vary.
Costs
Table 3 summarizes the estimated cost and expected yield for solid and narrow-skip
cotton.  The solid estimates are directly from reference [8].  The narrow-skip yield is assumed to
be to 92 percent of solid.  The narrow-skip cost adjustments to the solid estimates of cost are
related to linear feet of row per acre and improvements in equipment efficiency (primarily
harvesting units).  Land, management, and general farm overhead expenses do not vary for the
two systems.   It may be important to note that direct costs and total costs divided by yield (cents
per pound) both favor narrow-skip in Table 3.  Cotton is sold by the pound.  Thus, the production
cost per pound of lint is the relevant comparative measure and growers should compare
alternative cotton production systems in terms of production cost per pound.  6
Copyright © November 1999 by D.W. Parvin.  All rights reserved.  Readers may make verbatim
copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright
notice appears on all such copies.
Net Returns
Conventional wisdom has always stated that solid cotton is preferred at high cotton prices
and skip-row cotton is preferred at low prices.   This relationship remains true today, but our
concept of a high price and a low price must be modified to take into account the current cost of
production.  Table 4 summarizes net returns per acre for the two systems assuming the costs and
yields reported in Table 3.  In terms of net returns above total costs, solid planted cotton is
preferred at cotton prices above $1.11 per pound.  Relative to net returns above direct costs, solid
planted cotton is preferred at prices above $0.97 per pound.   Over a reasonable range of cotton
prices, the narrow-skip planting pattern is preferred.  The reader is cautioned that, at the current
price of cotton, both systems result in negative profits.  The columns associated with net returns
above direct cost should be employed with great caution.  Economic theory clearly indicates that
short-run decisions should be, or can safely be, based on returns above direct cost.  In theory the
difference between direct and fixed costs is clear.  For many growers with annual equipment
payments and land costs, the entire concept of net returns above direct costs can be misleading. 
Often returns above direct costs are positive and net returns are negative.
Limitations
The research on skip-row versus solid planted cotton summarized in Table 1 was non-
irrigated.  In years with severe drought skip-row cotton can out-yield solid cotton.  For example,
in 1971 Fulgham et al. [9] reported that skip-row out-yielded solid by 21 percent. Drought years7
Copyright © November 1999 by D.W. Parvin.  All rights reserved.  Readers may make verbatim
copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright
notice appears on all such copies.
are a factor in the reported yield relationship of skip-row to solid of 92 to 96 percent.  The
introduction of irrigation technology will alter the results presented in this report.  
Individual growers are cautioned not to use the information summarized in this report for
their particular farming situation.  They should utilize their own cost and yield data.  This
information is presented only as a guide.  It is all relative to a solid yield of 825 pounds of lint per
acre with a per acre production cost of $697.09.  These are estimates of averages.  By definition,
an average estimate implies that 50 percent of the growers have a yield higher than 825 pounds of
lint per acre and 50 percent of the growers (not necessarily the same 50 percent) have a cost less
than $697.09 per acre.  
In the experience of the authors, many growers have a yield of more than 100 pounds
greater than the solid yield of 825 employed in this report, and many growers have total costs
(primarily direct and fixed costs)  over $100 per acre less than the estimate employed in this
report.  Additionally, because of soil differences among farms, the 92 percent yield relationship
employed in this report may not be large enough for some farms.  Such changes will dramatically
alter the specific numbers presented in this report, especially the important one connected in Table
4.   For example, if the narrow-skip yield is 850 (an increase of 90 pounds of lint per acre) and
total cost per acre is $531.03 (a decrease of approximately $90), and the price of seed is $0.05
per pound, the breakeven price is $0.55 per pound of lint.  If the narrow-skip yield is increased by
40 to 800 and total cost is decreased by $45.00 to $574.97, breakeven price is $0.64.8
Copyright © November 1999 by D.W. Parvin.  All rights reserved.  Readers may make verbatim
copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright
notice appears on all such copies.
Conclusions and Implications
Broad based conclusions or recommendations on narrow-skip versus solid cotton are not
clear.  However, a dryland cotton farmer (no irrigation), with mostly type II and III soils that has
historically planted solid cotton, probably should consider narrow-skip rather than solid cotton. 
But this change in technology, at current prices, may not result in positive profits.  
However, one thing is clear.  Many Mid-South cotton farmers will grow their cotton
differently (less costly per acre and per pound) in the year 2000 (a few started in 1999) than was
done in the recent past.  The difference in the cotton production system may not be in planting
pattern, but it will be different.9
Copyright © November 1999 by D.W. Parvin.  All rights reserved.  Readers may make verbatim
copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright
notice appears on all such copies.
Table 1.  Relative yield per acre, solid vs. skip-row planting pattern, Delta area of Mississippi.
Year Ref. Soil Length
of study
Planting
pattern Yield Solid
yield
% of
solid
1969 4 Sand 4 2x1 711 790 90.00
Loam 2x1 627 710 88.31
Clay 2x1 393 580 67.76
1972 2 Sand 4 2x1 640 730 87.67
1973 9 Sand 4 SWB
1 777 809 96.04
1975 1 Sand 3 2x1 675 730 92.47
1975 7 Sand 3 2x1 675 767 88.01
1998 8 Sand 4 NSK
2 760 825 92.12
1SWD - Stoneville Wide Bed
2NSK - Narrow-skip
Table 2.  Relative yield per acre by type of cotton soil and planting pattern, Delta area of
Mississippi.
Soil type Description
Yield Percent of
solid Solid Narrow-skip
I Deep silt loam 825 760 .92
II Medium silty clay loam 775 729 .94
III Shallow silty clay 725 696 .9610
Copyright © November 1999 by D.W. Parvin.  All rights reserved.  Readers may make verbatim
copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright
notice appears on all such copies.
Table 3.  Estimated cost and expected yield, solid vs. narrow-skip planting pattern, cotton, Delta
area of Mississippi, 1999.
Item Unit Solid
1 Narrow-Skip
Yield pounds/acre 825 760
Direct cost dollars/acre 454.16 386.30
Fixed cost dollars/acre 82.93 73.67
Land dollars/acre 90.00 90.00
M&OH
2 dollars/acre 70.00 70.00
Total cost dollars/acre 697.09 619.97
DC÷Y cents/pound 55.05 50.83
TC÷Y cents/pound 84.50 81.58
1Source [8, p. 6, Table 1]
2Management plus general farm overhead.11
Copyright © November 1999 by D.W. Parvin.  All rights reserved.  Readers may make verbatim
copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright
notice appears on all such copies.
Table 4.  Net returns per acre above total cost and direct cost, solid vs. narrow-skip planting
pattern, selected cotton prices.
Price
Net Returns
Total Cost Direct Cost
Solid Narrow-Skip Solid Narrow-Skip
1.50 604.35 578.93 847.28 812.60
1.40 521.85 502.93 764.78 736.60
1.30 439.35 426.93 682.28 660.60
1.20 356.85 350.93 599.78 584.60
1.10 274.35 274.93 517.28 508.60
1.00 191.85 198.93 434.78 432.60
.90 109.35 122.93 352.28 356.60
.80 26.85 46.93 269.78 280.60
.70 -55.65 -29.07 187.28 204.60
.60 -138.15 -105.07 104.78 128.60
.50 -220.65 -181.07 22.28 52.60
.40 -303.15 -257.07 -60.22 -23.4012
Copyright © November 1999 by D.W. Parvin.  All rights reserved.  Readers may make verbatim
copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright
notice appears on all such copies.
Literature Cited
1. Cooke, F. T.  "Row spacings to lower production costs."  Proceedings of Beltwide Cotton
Production-Mechanization Conference, New Orleans, LA.  January, 1975.
2. Cooke, F. T., J. M. Anderson and A. M. Heagler.  Crop budgets and planning data for
major farm enterprises in the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta.  Bul. 794, MAFES, MSU, July,
1972.
3. Cooke, Fred T., Jr., Gordon Andrews, and Roy Meeks.  "The Economic Importance of
Earliness in Delta Agriculture."  Delta Business Journal, Vol. 1, No. 4, p. 24-25. 
September 1998.  
4. Cooke, F. T. and A. M. Heagler.  An economic appraisal of skip-row cotton planting in
the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta.  Bul. 697, MAFES, MSU, November 1969.
5. Cooke, Fred T., Jr., David W. Parvin, Jr., and Stan R. Spurlock.  "The costs of cotton
harvesting systems in the Mississippi Delta."  Beltwide Cotton Conferences, San Antonio,
Texas.  January 11, 1991.
6. Cooke, Fred T., Jr., David W. Parvin, Jr., and Stan R. Spurlock.  The costs of cotton
harvesting in the Mississippi Delta.  MSU/MAFES Bulletin 972, January 1991.
7. Cooke, F. T. and W. I. Spurgeon.  "Limited tillage and row spacings for lower cotton
production costs."  Proceedings of 16
th Annual Meeting of Louisiana Association of
Agronomists, Baton Rouge, LA, March 11-12, 1975.
8. Delta 1999 Planning Budgets.  Ag. Econ. Report 100, MAFES, MSU, December 1998.13
Copyright © November 1999 by D.W. Parvin.  All rights reserved.  Readers may make verbatim
copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright
notice appears on all such copies.
9. Fulgham, F. E., J. R. Williford and F. T. Cooke.  Stoneville wide-bed cultural systems. 
Bul. 850, MAFES, MSU, August 1973.
10. Parvin, D.W.  "The importance of harvest initiation date."  Beltwide Cotton Production
Research Conference, Las Vegas, NV.  January 1990.
11. Parvin, D.W.  "The weight loss associated with defoliated cotton and its implications." 
Beltwide Cotton Production Research Conference, Las Vegas, NV.  January 1999.
12. Parvin, D.W., and F. T. Cooke, Jr.  "The mathematics of cotton harvest."  Beltwide
Cotton Production Research Conference, Las Vegas, NV.  January 1990.  
13. Parvin, D.W., Jr., F. T. Cooke, Jr., W. P. Scott, and J.W. Smith.  The economics of
cotton harvesting in the Midsouth.  MAFES Staff Paper Series #69, April 1985.  
14. Parvin, D.W., Jr., J.W. Smith, and F.T. Cooke, Jr.  "Cost effectiveness of harvesting at the
right time."  Beltwide Cotton Production Conference.  Highlights of Cotton Production
Research Conferences, Special Sessions: Cotton Quality Improvement, Short Season
Cotton Production Systems, New Developments from Industry, Dallas, TX.  January
1987.
15. Spurlock, S.R., D.W. Parvin, Jr., and F.T. Cooke, Jr.  "Impacts of scrapping on harvest
costs."  Beltwide Cotton Conferences, San Antonio, TX.  January 1991.14
Copyright © November 1999 by D.W. Parvin.  All rights reserved.  Readers may make verbatim
copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright
notice appears on all such copies.

THE IMPACT OF CURRENT COTTON PRICE AND PRODUCTION COSTS ON SKIP-ROW COTTON

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics