Cotton production: Is wider better?

BY D.W. PARVIN, F.T. COOKE,
AND DUDLEY STEPHENS

  Introduction: Additional width can be achieved by adding rows (8 to 12 in this example) and/or by changing planting pattern (solid to full skip in this example).  Table 1 indicates how width is increased when picker size is changed from 4-row to 6-row and from 6-row solid to 6-row full skip.  Similar information is provided for selected planters and cultivators.
  The additional width improves equipment efficiency (hours per acre) reducing direct cost per acre.  And, just as importantly, increases acres per year, thereby reducing fixed cost per acre.  Moving from the narrowest to the widest systems in Table 1 increases acres per hour by more than 230 percent in each of the three examples.
  Procedure: Per acre budgets were constructed for each of the three systems of production. “Trips-over-the-field” and type of material applied were constant for each of the systems.
  Differences in cost were due to equipment width, linear feet of row per acre, and yield, except in the skip-row system, where ground equipment was substituted for insecticide and defoliation aerial applications. Yield does not influence harvest cost per acre but does affect ginning and hauling charges per acre and to a lesser degree the amount of nitrogen required.
  Mississippi Results: Table 2 compares three production systems: 8-row 38-inch solid, 12-row 38-inch solid, and 12-row 38-inch (2x1) full skip.  The estimates in Table 2 are based on the authors’ current (1-15-00) research and could change slightly as additional research is conducted.
  The first three cost items do not vary by systems.  The next four items vary as a function of equipment size and planting pattern.
  Changes in the last cost items labeled “gin” through “seed” are related to the skip-row pattern.  Custom spray denotes aerial application costs.  The solid systems have five insecticides and 1.5 defoliation aerial applications.  The skip-row system substitutes 6.5 ground applications.  This change reduced net application cost by $6.91 per acre for the skip-row system but allowed major savings in the material costs.
  Total direct expenses are $477.39 per acre for the 8-row 38” system.  Shifting to the 12-row 38” reduces direct expenses by $28.66 or 6 percent per acre.  However, a shift to 8-row 38” (2x1) reduces direct expenses by $121.84 or more than 25 percent per acre.  Fixed expenses and total specified expenses indicate similar reductions.
  Some ($8.50) of the reduction in direct expenses is related to ginning and hauling charges per pound and the reduced yield associated with the skip-row system (approximately 10 percent).
  Income per acre for the skip-row system is reduced by $58.43 per acre.  However, net returns above specified expenses are $107.78 for the skip-row system or $61.27 per acre greater than the 12-row solid system and $113.99 greater than 8-row solid.
  Tennessee Results: Table 3 reports condensed information similar to Table 2 for West Tennessee.  These numbers reflect the experience of one grower in 1999 (but with estimated costs for the year 2000).  His standard system (8-row - 38”) is similar in cost to the Mississippi system even though his management strategy for weed control was dramatically different and insect pressure in West Tennessee is substantially less than the Mississippi Delta.  He shifted to 12-R 30” (2x1) on a significant portion of his acreage (450 acres) and did not experience a yield decline.  In addition, all his sprays (both systems) were applied with ground equipment.  These changes substantially reduced direct and fixed expenses and improved his net returns by $128.66 per acre from $18.05 to $146.71 or 713 percent per acre.
  Conclusions: Wider is better if yield can be maintained or the value of the yield reduction (which may or may not occur depending upon soil type) is less than the reduction in cost of production (which will occur).
  Readers interested in copies of the detailed budget tables associated with each of the five systems (including a description of each trip over the field and the type and amount of materials applied) can contact the authors (662-686-3307 or 662-325-2044).

(D.W. Parvin is and Economist and Professor at MAFES/MSU; F.T. Cooke, Jr. is an Economist at
DREC/MAFES/MSU; and Dudley Stephens is a Cotton Specialist at MSUES.)

Back