Extension Circular 808 Explains and illustrates the cost of producing corn

Medlar, A. W.

Yerkes, Mason

English

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Historical Materials from University of Nebraska-
Lincoln Extension Extension
5-1926
EC808 Cost of Producing Corn : Fillmore and
Saunders Counties
Mason Yerkes
A. W. Medlar
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/extensionhist
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Extension at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Historical Materials from University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of
Nebraska - Lincoln.
Yerkes, Mason and Medlar, A. W., "EC808 Cost of Producing Corn : Fillmore and Saunders Counties" (1926). Historical Materials
from University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension. 2303.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/extensionhist/2303
AC;L( 
s 
'65 THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA 
~~ AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE EXTENSION SERVICE 
~ 8 ~ 1926 ExtensiOD Circular 808 
Cost of Producing Corn 
Fillmore and Saunders Countie3 
1925 
UNITED STATES 
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
COOPERATING 
ac.~-
1926 
Nt}bras:ka ;:_#;: .• .. • 
COOPERATIVE EXTENSI~ YIOBK 
. ··HI AGltrCUL'IURE · AND HOME· · ECONOM!C~f . 
u. of N •. Air···· C~ :l.le~ -& U. S. Dept. of Agr. C_ooperating 
W. H. ~ro .kaw, Direc·tor, Lincoln 
COST. OF PRODUCING CORN 
FILLMO~.E AlTD SAUNDERS COUNTIES 
Pre"9ared by t,~·son Yerkes an:d A. ii. ~tedlar. 
• - . J 
... 
Extension 
Circular 
808 
The _ volume of· bu:sinc'ss to date has not b een U"9 to the exp_ectation of· 
the more enthusiastic :predic:tions. The·re is no real seriousness in the situation. 
Expectations were too high. 
Business has been unusually prosperous for a long period and was due 
for a decline on account of maladjustment among the various branches of i:pdustry. 
The period of depression will have the least effect on the business that ·depends 
on efficien·cy· of management rath:rr than on bulk of sales. 
Whether manae:emen t is as inroortan t ·a . factor to Sllccess in agriculture 
as tn- other lines of busi~ess may be a debatable question. However, regardless 
of the answer efficiency of production over a pe rio_d of tim spells success. 
The ·summary of foU.rteen records . o-n : cost ~f producing corn in Fillmore 
County, 1925, brou~out . a wide : d.e·gfe~:- of variation· in cost of producing a bushel 
of corn. / · · .: · · · 
The to~al:'{>:peraHng expense per acre varied from $6.85 to $16 .45; the 
total cost per bushek2varied:-> from 45 cents to $1.33. Man labgr per acre varied 
from 3 hours to lO.a hours; -oe 'r bushel from 7 minutes · to 46 minute s. Horse labor 
per acre varied frok 14 ~ ~~rs · to 39.8. hours • 
. · ' ~ 
Compari~-9'3 :Q.f tw~ farms that had low cost of production and yielded 
the largest net p rofl t per bushe l with the t~ farms that ha d hig]l cost of . pro-
. " - . dumtion and sh owe - the greatest loss . per bushel_. 
Farm ·No.3: Fann No.l3: Farm No .lO: Far.m No.8: 
Total Operating Expense Per Acre $ 8.03 $ 16.45 $ 11.96 $ 7 .. 49 
rqet Cost per bushel 
.. .. :. - · ~ .40 .48 1.28 .91 
*'I'ptal 
.. 
Income Per Acre . .• ; -11'.83 20.65 5.18 5.91 
Net Profit Per Acre . 3.80 4 .20 -6.05 -2.31 
Net Profit Per Bushel . 21 .13 
-
.67 
-
.30 
* 
Income figured on basis of 61 cents average farm price of corn, January 1 in 
Nebraska. 
' ·- •:.:.·-· 
~ 5236-G 
0 
-2-
Farm No • 3 : Farm No .13 : Fa.nn No .10 : ~·arr.l No~·~9:....::~-
Man Labor Per Acre . Hours 4.7 10.8 7.6 8.5 
lvf.an Labor Per :Bushel. Minutes 8 12 31 41 
Wage per Man Hour . Qents • 80 . 40 -.79 - . 25 
Tenant's Yield per A. :Bu. (3/5) 18. 33. 9. 8. 
Total Acres i n Corn 59 40 73 48 . 
Although farms 3 and 13 were both profitable, the profits evidently 
were not secur~d in the s~~ fashion. 
The expense of faro 13 was more than t wice as much as for fann 3 . 
However, the yield was almost twice as . great . Natural conditions as well as 
mana~rnent greatly affect yields . The table, however , indicates t hat while farm 
number 13 made a lar ger profit per acre, it also had more labor and more expense 
per bushel. Farm 13 made the greater profit per acre because of the larger yield . 
On the basis of time, hcwever, farm 3 did much be t ter, making 80 cents for each 
hour up to husking, than· fam 13 wh i ch made 40 cents per hoiir . 
The follov.ing table shows why Farm Ho . 3 made a larger wage per hour. 
Farm Uo . 3: Faro No . l3 
Total Operating E:A-pense Per Bu. 45 cents 51 cents 
. Man Labor per Bushel 8 min. 12 min. 
The question that every farmer has to decide is· how much l abor is 
really necessary to bring the lar~st net profit per hour. 
In noting far.ms 10 and 8, it is r eadily seen that the low yield per 
acre was one of the b,ig factor s ·in the high ·cost per bushel . The low yie l d also 
increased the time required to product a bushel. ·Again r~tuial conditions probably 
played a part in the low yield per acre. · 
SAUNDERS COU1'"I'Y 
Farm Fann Farm Farm 
No . 1 No. 12 No . 16 No. 10 
Total Oper~ting Expense per Acre ·$ 8. 67 $ 6.45 $13.60 $15 . 44 
Net Cost per Bushel 
. 23 . 23 .66 . 70 
Total Income per Acre 21 . 10 15.07 12 . 70 13. 48 
Net Profit per Acre 12 . 43 
.. 
8.60 - .89 -1 .. 96 
Net Profit per Busrel 
.38 • 37 - . 05 . - . 09 
5236-G 
-3-
Farm Farm Farm Fann 
lJo.l No.l2 . no~ ·rs Uo. 10 
Man Labor Per Acre. Hours 5 . 5 2 . 9 . 8:9 ·. 10 . 9 
... 
Man :Cabor Per B-Q.shel. ~r..els 6 5 17 19 
Wage Per Man Hour - Cents $ 2·25 2 . 94 -.10 - .18 
Tenant's Yield per -.Acre ' --
Bushel (3/5) 33 ·- ~ 19 21 
Total Acres in Corn 60 130 50 82 
The study of cost of producing corn in Saunders county shows results 
very s~ilar to Fillmore county. In general, the same explanations would a~ply 
to both counties. 
Farms 1 and 12 of Saunders eounty, however, show a more uniform 
relation throu&~o~t than do farms 3 and 13 of Fillmore county; i.e. while the 
expense of 12 is less than 1, the y ield is correspondingly lower . As a result 
the net costs per bushel or net profits per bushel on farmsl"and 12 are very 
nearly the same. 
There ate, however, h;o noticeable differences between the two 
counties . The £irst diffe~ence is the uniformly higher yield throughout in 
Saunders county , which, of course, tends to lower tbe cost of production per 
bushel . This differr nce may be accounted for in two ways . It may be, and very 
probably is, due to the natural conditions being more favorable t o corn pro-
duction in Saunders county. Th~ second way that the difference in yield could 
be accounted for , is largely one of management . 
As to y ield, we quote from the Report of the 1925 Corn Yield Contest 
of the Nebra ska Cro~ Growers Association . "Perhaps the most outstanding thing 
shown by the records of the 38 contestants in the eas·tern region is the effect 
of the legRme crops on corn yield . The average yield per acre of these 38 men 
was 69 busnels per acre. According to official statistics, the average yield of 
all corn in t he ee.stern region t~is past ·season was about 35 bushels uer acre •. 
(Records from Fil:1more @.ve an average of 28 . ? bushels per acre.) What made the 
34 bushel ·incre"ase per acre on the 10-acre 'fields entered by the contestant s ? 
A look at the reco ris shows that of these 38 rren only five did not have alfalfa, 
r ed or sweet clover on these fields within the last four years and most of them 
within ,';he last two years •• • It cannot be said that the contestants entered 
bo ttom or creek land fields because the majority of them did not do so •11 
The second very noticeable differ ence is one that appears largely 
to be one of management a"YJ.d concerns the expenses entering into the cost of 
pr oducti on. 
5236-G 
- ~-
. 
· · · - Tenant Yield Per Acre ~ · 
. .. ' . . .. Expenses Per Acre 
• • • • • • a f' .,. • " . - . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • . . .. • • • • • • · • • • • • ... • • • • • • • • · • · • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 
* 
. . . . . 
Farm number ' 1 ' 2 ; 3 ; 4 ; . 1 
Fillmore · 18 33 9 8 $ 8~03 
Saunders 33 
IT' 
23 21 8;,67 
2 , · .3 
$-16.45 
6.45 13.60 
.. 
. 
4 
$ 7.49 
. 15~44 
Farms are so numbered for reference -- but are the sa.'Ile farms and arranged in 
the same order as in the previous tables. 
The two farms 3 .and 4 of Fi],lmore county nad a .l.arge expense per 
bushel largely because of the relatively low yield per acre. It will be noticed 
that the expense per acN of farms in Fillmore county does not vary to the same 
extent that the farms in Saunders cmu..Ylty do. 
Notice especially fanns -1 and 2 of Saunders county. Farm 4 with 
but two ·bushels less yield per acre had practically nine dollars ~ore expense. 
Reference to the -original figures on farm 4 indicates that the labor itcm, ·both 
r..an and ·· horse labo·:r, . was out of proportion. · Tho· reason for this proportionately 
large ar:1ount of labo;r ~Y have been due ·· to the ·u.nne·cessary cultivation. Experi.:.. 
mental dP.ta tends toward the conclusion that if the soil is free . from weeds and . 
has more or less of a natural mulch -- not hard a.."ld apt to crac..lr, -- additional 
cultivation is s"iinply adding · to ·the expense. Whatever the reason may have been, 
Fa...""'D Accounts will do more to remedy such a si tU.ation than will · any amount . of 
legislation. 
Remember the two essential -points that affect the income from corn. 
(a) Lowest expense possible and yet mailltain maxii!llll!l .efficiency. 
(b) Largest yield possible. 
How is the farmer to rerrember the t wo essentials? 
"Farm accounting offers a greater hope to the grower than the tariff, 
cooperative nnrketing, or anything else, but its ap-pli¢ation is not easy <J~Wing 
to the factors of joint products and expenditures of the farm family's time and 
money. Thus far scarcely a start has been made in farm accounting. Therefore, 
we cannot disprove the recent statement' that the e stablishment of a cost sign 
on produc t s would me an one billion dollars to A."!!Jerican Agriculture ." * 
* ") 3Principles Dnd Practices of Cooperative V.a.rketing. p . 56 
Mears and Tobriner of Leland Stamford University. 
5236-G 
... 
t, 
·~ 
-5-
... 
' .. .. . .;-. ~ ·- -· .. , . . .... .. 
SOME FACTORS .~CTING COBN PROWCTION. Saund-vrs Count:t. 1925 
Net Net N~.t .'Tot'ru. . : Net:·~ ·: *Man f. . Yi~ld . : " Total 
.Fn.rm :Prpfi t C-ost Profit : . . :cost· . Profit : Iin.bor : Pe~kre .. Nl.u:f0er . . . 
... Nill6cr: Per Per Per ·. · :· .: Per·· - · : -~~-Per . . . :Per . : · .(r,J;opSlilt of 
** :Bushel Bushel Acre : AC:~e ·· :Marl ··Hour: Acre · : :. : 3/5) Acres 
Dollars Ibllars Do~lars nollars Do~lars Hours 
.. 
1 ~38 .23 12.43 8,,67 2~25 5,5 33 60 
12 .37 .23 8,60 6,45 2.94 2~9 23 130 
17 .25 .35 5.92 9.52 1.40 4.2 24 100 
13 .25 .36 5:~.29 8.64 L74 3.0 21 90 
15 .22 .39 7!25 14.00 1.45 5.0 33 42 
5 .21 .40 6,46 13.41 .84 7.7 30 62 
2 .19 ,42 4~81 11.22 ! 8_7 5.5 24 55 
20 .19 .42 4!74 10.?6 ,56 8.5 25 100 
Average .17 .43 4.03 11.?6 .59 6.8 24 67 
7 ~16 .45 3.54 .. . 10 .. 99 .... .. .42 . ... 8,-9: 22 20 
4 • 14 .47 3.28 11.44 .64 5,1 27 80 
8 .14 .47 2.80 10.26 .44 6.3 20 55 
6 .13 .49 3.33 12.89 .51 6.5 24 65 
9 .11 .50 2.73 14.32 .24 10.9 26 25 
18 ,09 . . .. . 52 .. 2.30 13~34 -- . .24 . 8.7 24 65 
3 .09 ·.52 2~09 13 .o5 ·· ,26 ~~~ 27 80 
11 .06 • 55 .90 10.14 ,11 8.2 15 55 
-
' . 14' .05 .55 .96 12.10 ,_oe · 11,4 20 41 
19 .04 .80 .69 12.94 • 07 9.9 21 85 . 
16 -.05 .59 -.89 13.60 -.10 8.9 19 50 
10 -.09 .70 
-1.96 15.44 -.18 10.9 21 82 
* Hours Man Labor up to Husking Time. 
** 1-fu.nib er s refer to farmers cooperating with this Department. 
Farms are arranged in order of ne~ profit per bushel. 
5236-G 
-6-
SOME FACTORS AFFECTING CORN PRODUCTION ]'illmore County, 1925 
Net 
Farm Profit 
Nunib er : Per-
** Bushel : 
Dollars 
3 .21 
11 .17 
6 .17 
13 
14 
5 .10 
'2 .08 
12 .06 
4 
7 
Average .04 
9 -.18 
8 -.30 
10 -.67 
J.Tet 
Cost· 
Per 
Bushel 
:Collars 
.40 
.44 
.48 
. 48 
.50 
.53 
.54 
.56 
.56 
.61 
~79 
.90 
1.28 
Net ·· .:· 
: · Profit 
Per 
Acre 
Dollars 
3.80 
1.89 
2_.15 
1.44 
.56 
.80 
-?.31 
-6.05 
* Hours Man Labor Up to Husking Time. 
Net : · Ret . : · ~,fah - : Yield To:tal 
Cost : .. · Prof;i. t: Lab9r :Per Acre: Nu."llber: 
Per : .. Per pe;- (Tenant: of 
Acre :lfum Hour: Acre 3/5) : Acres 
8.03 
10.40 
8.98 
16.45 
11.66 
10~ 45 
10.88 
13.49 
7.49 
11.96 
.80 
~94 
~51 
.40 
.43 
~22 
.• 20 
~17 
~20 
.12 
~04 
-.38 
-.25 
-.79 
6.0 
6.7 
6.1 
6.4 
7.7 
8!9 
7.p 
18 
21 
18 
33 
15 
21 
18 
20 
21 
12 
18 
21 
16 
8 
9 
59 
20 
40 
.110 
43 
70 
55 
115 
?0 
88 
80 
48 
73 
** N~~bers refer to fa.~rs C®operating uith this Depar~ent. 
Farms are arranged in the order of net profit per bushel. 
Additional copies n:ny be bad upon request. Address the State Extension Agent, 
Departrxnt of Rural Econooics, College of Agriculture, Lincoln, Nebraska. 
523.6.-G 
,, 


EC808  Cost of Producing Corn : Fillmore and Saunders Counties

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - LincolnDigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - LincolnHistorical Materials from University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension Extension5-1926EC808 Cost of Producing Corn : Fillmore andSaunders CountiesMason YerkesA. W. MedlarFollow 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.Yerkes, Mason and Medlar, A. W., "EC808 Cost of Producing Corn : Fillmore and Saunders Counties" (1926). Historical Materialsfrom University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension. 2303.http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/extensionhist/2303AC;L( s '65 THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA ~~ AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE EXTENSION SERVICE ~ 8 ~ 1926 ExtensiOD Circular 808 Cost of Producing Corn Fillmore and Saunders Countie3 1925 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING ac.~-1926 Nt}bras:ka ;:_#;: .• .. • COOPERATIVE EXTENSI~ YIOBK . ··HI AGltrCUL'IURE · AND HOME· · ECONOM!C~f . u. of N •. Air···· C~ :l.le~ -& U. S. Dept. of Agr. C_ooperating W. H. ~ro .kaw, Direc·tor, Lincoln COST. OF PRODUCING CORN FILLMO~.E AlTD SAUNDERS COUNTIES Pre"9ared by t,~·son Yerkes an:d A. ii. ~tedlar. • - . J ... Extension Circular 808 The _ volume of· bu:sinc'ss to date has not b een U"9 to the exp_ectation of· the more enthusiastic :predic:tions. The·re is no real seriousness in the situation. Expectations were too high. Business has been unusually prosperous for a long period and was due for a decline on account of maladjustment among the various branches of i:pdustry. The period of depression will have the least effect on the business that ·depends on efficien·cy· of management rath:rr than on bulk of sales. Whether manae:emen t is as inroortan t ·a . factor to Sllccess in agriculture as tn- other lines of busi~ess may be a debatable question. However, regardless of the answer efficiency of production over a pe rio_d of tim spells success. The ·summary of foU.rteen records . o-n : cost ~f producing corn in Fillmore County, 1925, brou~out . a wide : d.e·gfe~:- of variation· in cost of producing a bushel of corn. / · · .: · · · The to~al:'{>:peraHng expense per acre varied from $6.85 to $16 .45; the total cost per bushek2varied:-> from 45 cents to $1.33. Man labgr per acre varied from 3 hours to lO.a hours; -oe 'r bushel from 7 minutes · to 46 minute s. Horse labor per acre varied frok 14 ~ ~~rs · to 39.8. hours • . · ' ~ Compari~-9'3 :Q.f tw~ farms that had low cost of production and yielded the largest net p rofl t per bushe l with the t~ farms that ha d hig]l cost of . pro-. " - . dumtion and sh owe - the greatest loss . per bushel_. Farm ·No.3: Fann No.l3: Farm No .lO: Far.m No.8: Total Operating Expense Per Acre $ 8.03 $ 16.45 $ 11.96 $ 7 .. 49 rqet Cost per bushel .. .. :. - · ~ .40 .48 1.28 .91 *'I'ptal .. Income Per Acre . .• ; -11'.83 20.65 5.18 5.91 Net Profit Per Acre . 3.80 4 .20 -6.05 -2.31 Net Profit Per Bushel . 21 .13 -.67 -.30 * Income figured on basis of 61 cents average farm price of corn, January 1 in Nebraska. ' ·- •:.:.·-· ~ 5236-G 0 -2-Farm No • 3 : Farm No .13 : Fa.nn No .10 : ~·arr.l No~·~9:....::~-Man Labor Per Acre . Hours 4.7 10.8 7.6 8.5 lvf.an Labor Per :Bushel. Minutes 8 12 31 41 Wage per Man Hour . Qents • 80 . 40 -.79 - . 25 Tenant's Yield per A. :Bu. (3/5) 18. 33. 9. 8. Total Acres i n Corn 59 40 73 48 . Although farms 3 and 13 were both profitable, the profits evidently were not secur~d in the s~~ fashion. The expense of faro 13 was more than t wice as much as for fann 3 . However, the yield was almost twice as . great . Natural conditions as well as mana~rnent greatly affect yields . The table, however , indicates t hat while farm number 13 made a lar ger profit per acre, it also had more labor and more expense per bushel. Farm 13 made the greater profit per acre because of the larger yield . On the basis of time, hcwever, farm 3 did much be t ter, making 80 cents for each hour up to husking, than· fam 13 wh i ch made 40 cents per hoiir . The follov.ing table shows why Farm Ho . 3 made a larger wage per hour. Farm Uo . 3: Faro No . l3 Total Operating E:A-pense Per Bu. 45 cents 51 cents . Man Labor per Bushel 8 min. 12 min. The question that every farmer has to decide is· how much l abor is really necessary to bring the lar~st net profit per hour. In noting far.ms 10 and 8, it is r eadily seen that the low yield per acre was one of the b,ig factor s ·in the high ·cost per bushel . The low yie l d also increased the time required to product a bushel. ·Again r~tuial conditions probably played a part in the low yield per acre. · SAUNDERS COU1'"I'Y Farm Fann Farm Farm No . 1 No. 12 No . 16 No. 10 Total Oper~ting Expense per Acre ·$ 8. 67 $ 6.45 $13.60 $15 . 44 Net Cost per Bushel . 23 . 23 .66 . 70 Total Income per Acre 21 . 10 15.07 12 . 70 13. 48 Net Profit per Acre 12 . 43 .. 8.60 - .89 -1 .. 96 Net Profit per Busrel .38 • 37 - . 05 . - . 09 5236-G -3-Farm Farm Farm Fann lJo.l No.l2 . no~ ·rs Uo. 10 Man Labor Per Acre. Hours 5 . 5 2 . 9 . 8:9 ·. 10 . 9 ... Man :Cabor Per B-Q.shel. ~r..els 6 5 17 19 Wage Per Man Hour - Cents $ 2·25 2 . 94 -.10 - .18 Tenant's Yield per -.Acre ' --Bushel (3/5) 33 ·- ~ 19 21 Total Acres in Corn 60 130 50 82 The study of cost of producing corn in Saunders county shows results very s~ilar to Fillmore county. In general, the same explanations would a~ply to both counties. Farms 1 and 12 of Saunders eounty, however, show a more uniform relation throu&~o~t than do farms 3 and 13 of Fillmore county; i.e. while the expense of 12 is less than 1, the y ield is correspondingly lower . As a result the net costs per bushel or net profits per bushel on farmsl"and 12 are very nearly the same. There ate, however, h;o noticeable differences between the two counties . The £irst diffe~ence is the uniformly higher yield throughout in Saunders county , which, of course, tends to lower tbe cost of production per bushel . This differr nce may be accounted for in two ways . It may be, and very probably is, due to the natural conditions being more favorable t o corn pro-duction in Saunders county. Th~ second way that the difference in yield could be accounted for , is largely one of management . As to y ield, we quote from the Report of the 1925 Corn Yield Contest of the Nebra ska Cro~ Growers Association . "Perhaps the most outstanding thing shown by the records of the 38 contestants in the eas·tern region is the effect of the legRme crops on corn yield . The average yield per acre of these 38 men was 69 busnels per acre. According to official statistics, the average yield of all corn in t he ee.stern region t~is past ·season was about 35 bushels uer acre •. (Records from Fil:1more @.ve an average of 28 . ? bushels per acre.) What made the 34 bushel ·incre"ase per acre on the 10-acre 'fields entered by the contestant s ? A look at the reco ris shows that of these 38 rren only five did not have alfalfa, r ed or sweet clover on these fields within the last four years and most of them within ,';he last two years •• • It cannot be said that the contestants entered bo ttom or creek land fields because the majority of them did not do so •11 The second very noticeable differ ence is one that appears largely to be one of management a"YJ.d concerns the expenses entering into the cost of pr oducti on. 5236-G - ~-. · · · - Tenant Yield Per Acre ~ · . .. ' . . .. Expenses Per Acre • • • • • • a f' .,. • " . - . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • . . .. • • • • • • · • • • • • ... • • • • • • • • · • · • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • * . . . . . Farm number ' 1 ' 2 ; 3 ; 4 ; . 1 Fillmore · 18 33 9 8 $ 8~03 Saunders 33 IT' 23 21 8;,67 2 , · .3 $-16.45 6.45 13.60 .. . 4 $ 7.49 . 15~44 Farms are so numbered for reference -- but are the sa.'Ile farms and arranged in the same order as in the previous tables. The two farms 3 .and 4 of Fi],lmore county nad a .l.arge expense per bushel largely because of the relatively low yield per acre. It will be noticed that the expense per acN of farms in Fillmore county does not vary to the same extent that the farms in Saunders cmu..Ylty do. Notice especially fanns -1 and 2 of Saunders county. Farm 4 with but two ·bushels less yield per acre had practically nine dollars ~ore expense. Reference to the -original figures on farm 4 indicates that the labor itcm, ·both r..an and ·· horse labo·:r, . was out of proportion. · Tho· reason for this proportionately large ar:1ount of labo;r ~Y have been due ·· to the ·u.nne·cessary cultivation. Experi.:.. mental dP.ta tends toward the conclusion that if the soil is free . from weeds and . has more or less of a natural mulch -- not hard a.."ld apt to crac..lr, -- additional cultivation is s"iinply adding · to ·the expense. Whatever the reason may have been, Fa...""'D Accounts will do more to remedy such a si tU.ation than will · any amount . of legislation. Remember the two essential -points that affect the income from corn. (a) Lowest expense possible and yet mailltain maxii!llll!l .efficiency. (b) Largest yield possible. How is the farmer to rerrember the t wo essentials? "Farm accounting offers a greater hope to the grower than the tariff, cooperative nnrketing, or anything else, but its ap-pli¢ation is not easy <J~Wing to the factors of joint products and expenditures of the farm family's time and money. Thus far scarcely a start has been made in farm accounting. Therefore, we cannot disprove the recent statement' that the e stablishment of a cost sign on produc t s would me an one billion dollars to A."!!Jerican Agriculture ." * * ") 3Principles Dnd Practices of Cooperative V.a.rketing. p . 56 Mears and Tobriner of Leland Stamford University. 5236-G ... t, ·~ -5-... ' .. .. . .;-. ~ ·- -· .. , . . .... .. SOME FACTORS .~CTING COBN PROWCTION. Saund-vrs Count:t. 1925 Net Net N~.t .'Tot'ru. . : Net:·~ ·: *Man f. . Yi~ld . : " Total .Fn.rm :Prpfi t C-ost Profit : . . :cost· . Profit : Iin.bor : Pe~kre .. Nl.u:f0er . . . ... Nill6cr: Per Per Per ·. · :· .: Per·· - · : -~~-Per . . . :Per . : · .(r,J;opSlilt of ** :Bushel Bushel Acre : AC:~e ·· :Marl ··Hour: Acre · : :. : 3/5) Acres Dollars Ibllars Do~lars nollars Do~lars Hours .. 1 ~38 .23 12.43 8,,67 2~25 5,5 33 60 12 .37 .23 8,60 6,45 2.94 2~9 23 130 17 .25 .35 5.92 9.52 1.40 4.2 24 100 13 .25 .36 5:~.29 8.64 L74 3.0 21 90 15 .22 .39 7!25 14.00 1.45 5.0 33 42 5 .21 .40 6,46 13.41 .84 7.7 30 62 2 .19 ,42 4~81 11.22 ! 8_7 5.5 24 55 20 .19 .42 4!74 10.?6 ,56 8.5 25 100 Average .17 .43 4.03 11.?6 .59 6.8 24 67 7 ~16 .45 3.54 .. . 10 .. 99 .... .. .42 . ... 8,-9: 22 20 4 • 14 .47 3.28 11.44 .64 5,1 27 80 8 .14 .47 2.80 10.26 .44 6.3 20 55 6 .13 .49 3.33 12.89 .51 6.5 24 65 9 .11 .50 2.73 14.32 .24 10.9 26 25 18 ,09 . . .. . 52 .. 2.30 13~34 -- . .24 . 8.7 24 65 3 .09 ·.52 2~09 13 .o5 ·· ,26 ~~~ 27 80 11 .06 • 55 .90 10.14 ,11 8.2 15 55 -' . 14' .05 .55 .96 12.10 ,_oe · 11,4 20 41 19 .04 .80 .69 12.94 • 07 9.9 21 85 . 16 -.05 .59 -.89 13.60 -.10 8.9 19 50 10 -.09 .70 -1.96 15.44 -.18 10.9 21 82 * Hours Man Labor up to Husking Time. ** 1-fu.nib er s refer to farmers cooperating with this Department. Farms are arranged in order of ne~ profit per bushel. 5236-G -6-SOME FACTORS AFFECTING CORN PRODUCTION ]'illmore County, 1925 Net Farm Profit Nunib er : Per-** Bushel : Dollars 3 .21 11 .17 6 .17 13 14 5 .10 '2 .08 12 .06 4 7 Average .04 9 -.18 8 -.30 10 -.67 J.Tet Cost· Per Bushel :Collars .40 .44 .48 . 48 .50 .53 .54 .56 .56 .61 ~79 .90 1.28 Net ·· .:· : · Profit Per Acre Dollars 3.80 1.89 2_.15 1.44 .56 .80 -?.31 -6.05 * Hours Man Labor Up to Husking Time. Net : · Ret . : · ~,fah - : Yield To:tal Cost : .. · Prof;i. t: Lab9r :Per Acre: Nu."llber: Per : .. Per pe;- (Tenant: of Acre :lfum Hour: Acre 3/5) : Acres 8.03 10.40 8.98 16.45 11.66 10~ 45 10.88 13.49 7.49 11.96 .80 ~94 ~51 .40 .43 ~22 .• 20 ~17 ~20 .12 ~04 -.38 -.25 -.79 6.0 6.7 6.1 6.4 7.7 8!9 7.p 18 21 18 33 15 21 18 20 21 12 18 21 16 8 9 59 20 40 .110 43 70 55 115 ?0 88 80 48 73 ** N~~bers refer to fa.~rs C®operating uith this Depar~ent. Farms are arranged in the order of net profit per bushel. Additional copies n:ny be bad upon request. Address the State Extension Agent, Departrxnt of Rural Econooics, College of Agriculture, Lincoln, Nebraska. 523.6.-G ,, 

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3298&context=extensionhist

EC808 Cost of Producing Corn : Fillmore and Saunders Counties

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNL | Libraries

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska