BULLETIN 330 NOVEMBER 1960 -,wd .n J I. .. 1/f r rDi a~-a iu / Ii+ COSTS AND RETURNS ., . .. -. , . . .. ~ 1 I .ray OF PRODUCING RUNNER PEANUTS IN SOUTHEASTERN ALABAMA AU CONTENTS Page EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE - 3 -4 DESCRIPTION OF FARMS -------THE PEANUT ENTERPRISE ----SIZE OF PEANUT FIELDS -------- ---- ---6 5 TIME REQUIREMENTS ------ 7---------7-------Farms----------- Mechanized or Partially-Mechanized Workstock FarmsCOSTS OF PRODUCTION- 7 11 12 - - -- - - - - - ------- - Mechanized or Partially-Mechanized Workstock N ET RETURNS Farms ------------ 12 15 1 16.----- Farm s -------------------------------------- -------------- Mechanized or Partially-Mechanized Farms Workstock Farm s -------------------------COST AND NET RETURNS COMPARISONS BY HARVEST MACHINE USED 16 -----19 20 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 21 AP PE NDI X .. .. . ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...... ... .. .. .. .. ... . ... .. .. .. .. . COST PROCEDURE AND METHODS -----. 4 ------ 2 24 Power and Equipment Costs ......Other Costs SUGGESTED PROCEDURE FOR CALCULATING 24 25 COSTS AND RETURNS - 32 FIRST PRINTING 41/2M, NOVEMBER 1960 Costs and Returns of Producing Runner Peanuts in Southeastern Alabama* JACK S. ROSS, Assistant in Agricultural Economics* J. H. YEAGER, Agricultural Economist PEANUT PRODUCTION has been subject to acreage controls and marketing quotas since passage of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, except for the war and post-war years of 1943-48. Because of acreage allotments, only limited adjustments could be made in size of peanut enterprise on an individual farm to increase production efficiency. Since farmers are unable to increase acreage of peanuts, they need other means of improving efficiency and increasing profits. This calls for producing high yields without excessive production costs. To provide needed information on production costs and returns from peanuts, a study was carried out by the Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station in the peanut-producing area of southeastern Alabama. Objectives of the study were to determine (1) physical and dollar value of inputs (costs) and returns, (2) the relationship of size of peanut enterprises and factors associated with size to costs and returns, and (3) the means by which certain growers have become more efficient than others. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE Data were obtained by personal interview with 79 peanut growers in southeastern Alabama during the summer of 1958. * This study was supported by Hatch and by State Research funds. The authors acknowledge the assistance and cooperation of the 79 farmers who provided the basic data for the study; of county agents and personnel in State and County ASC offices who assisted in the study; and of members of the reading committee for their helpful suggestions. ** Resigned. 4 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Growers interviewed were located in the following counties: 15 in Butler, 15 in Dale, 26 in Geneva, and 23 in Henry. The sample was drawn by list sampling methods from acreage records of peanut producers in the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation State Office, Montgomery. Each grower's peanut enterprise was classified according to the following size groups: small, less than 10 acres; medium, 10 through 29.9 acres; or large, 30 acres or more. Simple rather than weighted averages were used in arriving at average man-hours, costs, and net returns for groups of farms. The analysis presents a farm picture of what costs and returns were in producing peanuts along with associated factors of labor used, size of peanut enterprise, and method of harvest. Practically all costs of producing peanuts were included. Values were placed on family and operator's labor used according to "going" wage rates in the area. (See Appendix for method used in arriving at various costs.) Net return, as calculated, represents profit or return to the farm operator for his management, since all labor and capital costs were included. DESCRIPTION of FARMS The average cropland of the 79 farms was 135 acres, but half had less than 100 acres. Seventy-three per cent grew cotton and 97 per cent grew corn. Average cotton acreage per farm reporting was 19.4 and corn, including that hogged, was 68.8 acres. Yields reported by farmers for 1955 through 1957 averaged 415 pounds of lint cotton and 28 bushels of corn per acre. Nearly half of the growers planted oats in 1957. A large part of this crop was planted following peanuts. Seventy-nine per cent of the farmers reported hogs and 37 per cent beef cattle as major livestock enterprises. Thirty per cent of the farmers were full owners, 47 per cent part-owners (rented land from others in addition to that owned), and 23 per cent were tenants. No sharecroppers were included in the study. The average age of farm operators was 45 years. Twenty-seven per cent were 56 or older, with 29 per cent having completed 11 or more grades of school. Generally, as age of farm operators increased the number of school grades completed decreased. Also, level of formal educa- COSTS and RETURNS of PRODUCING PEANUTS 5 tion was associated with size of peanut enterprises. Farmers with large peanut enterprises averaged 9.9 years of formal education. Those with medium-sized enterprises averaged 8.5 years, and those with small enterprises averaged 7.5 years of formal education. THE PEANUT ENTERPRISE Acreage of peanuts harvested in 1958 varied from 2.7 to 233 acres per farm. The average was 33.4 acres. Average yields of peanuts were reported for the period 1955 through 1957. The range in yields was from 700 to 2,200 pounds per acre with an overall average of 1,280 pounds per acre. Average yields by size of enterprise were: small, 1,251 pounds per acre; medium, 1,276 pounds; and large, 1,310 pounds per acre. Peanut hay was saved on only 54 per cent of the peanut acreage harvested, although 61 out of 79 farmers reported saving some hay. Farmers with small peanut enterprises saved hay from a larger portion of their acreage harvested than did those with medium and large enterprises. Fourteen farmers reported selling peanut hay in 1957. Average amount sold per farm was 6.9 tons. Average yield of hay reported for 1955-57 was highly variable. Forty-six per cent of the farmers: reported some peanuts planted for hogging purposes. The average was 8.2 acres per farm reporting. Hogs were used to glean peanut fields after harvest by two-thirds of the farmers, but on only 50 per cent of the harvested acreage. Fifty-seven per cent of the farmers (with 28 per cent of the peanut acreage) hired the picking of peanuts on a custom basis. A stationary picker was used on 78 per cent of the farms and 60 per cent of the acreage where custom picking was hired. Pulltype pickers or combines were used on the remaining 22 per cent of farms. Among peanut producers who owned picking machines, the type machine used varied somewhat from those for custom use. Pull-type pickers were used by 44 per cent of the farmers that owned picking machines, stationary pickers by 35 per cent, and combines by 21 per cent. The corresponding portion of acreage picked by type machine when machines were owned was 50, 22, and 28 per cent. In total, stationary pickers were used by 60 per cent of the farmers to harvest 33 per cent of the acreage, pull-type pickers by 24 per cent to harvest 40 per cent of the acreage, and 6 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION combines by 16 per cent of the farmers to harvest 27 per cent of the acreage. Thus, 60 per cent of the growers stacked peanuts and 40 per cent harvested from windrows or piles. The acreage harvested from windrows or piles, however, represented 67 per cent of the total. SIZE of PEANUT FIELDS Size of peanut field influences unit time requirements for the various operations in peanut production. For example, a large field normally requires less time per acre per cultivation than a small one. However, other factors, such as shape of field, length of rows, size of equipment, topography, number of terraces, soil type, and condition and stage of crop growth, affect the speed of cultivation and other operations. Results of the investigations of various relationships with size are presented on the basis of size of peanut enterprise rather than size of fields. The data, however, were obtained on a field basis. Fields were selected as representative of the size of peanut enterprise on farms included in the sample. As a rule, farmers with small peanut enterprises had small fields and those with large enterprises had large fields. Peanut fields varied in size from 1/2 to 55 acres. The average was 10 acres. On farms with small peanut enterprises, 87 per cent of the fields were less than 6 acres, Table 1. On large peanut enterprise farms, 76 per cent of the fields were 6 acres or larger. TABLE 1. DISTRIBUTION OF SIZE OF PEANUT FIELDS IN RELATION TO SIZE OF PEANUT ENTERPRISE, 79 FARMS IN SOUTHEASTERN ALABAMA, 1958 Size of field Acres Less than 3.0------------3.0- 5.9-----------------6.0- 8.9 ------------------ Percentage of various size peanut fields on farms with different size peanut enterprises' Large Medium Small Per cent 33 854 13 ------ Per cent 9 35 26 Per cent 6 18 20 9.0-11.9------------------- --12.0-14.9------------------ ---- 0 0 19 5 9 12 15.0-17.9------------------ ---18.0 and over TOTAL 0 0 100 3 3 100 18 22 100 13.2 7.3 3.7 Average field size, acres 5.0 3.2 1.4 Average number of fields-------29 23 27 Number of farms 1 Small enterprises, less than 10 acres; medium, 10 to 29.9 acres; and large, 80 acres or over. COSTS and RETURNS of PRODUCING PEANUTS 7 Fields in which combines or pull-type pickers were used to harvest peanuts averaged almost twice as large as those in which stationary pickers were used. Also, farmers who, used machinery throughout in producing peanuts, or used workstock for cultivating only, had an average peanut field size of 10.5 acres compared with 3.8 acres for farmers who used workstock for all operations. TIME REQUIREMENTS Mechanized or Partially-Mechanized Forms For purposes of this study, partially-mechanized farms are those on which growers used workstock in cultivating peanuts and tractor equipment for other operations. Only six growers TABLE 2. AVERAGE MAN AND TRACTOR HOURS PER ACRE IN RELATION TO SIZE OF PEANUT ENTERPRISE, 69 MECHANIZED OR PARTIALLY-MECHANIZED FARMS, SOUTHEASTERN ALABAMA, 1958 Total or average Hours Operation Man and tractor hours per acre, by size of peanut enterprise Large Small Medium Hours Hours Hours Labor Pre-harvest Land preparation Planting and fertilizing Hoeing and hand weeding. Cultivating Applying insect and disease control materials TOTAL ......................... - . --- 3.0 1.8 15.4 5.4 .6 26.2 29.0 1.9 30.9 3.3 2.2 10.5 4.1 .6 20.7 21.8 1.6 23.4 44.1 2.7 2.1 10.8 3.6 .5 19.7 13.3 1.7 15.0 34.7 3.0 2.1 12.0 4.3 .6 22.0 20.2 1.7 21.9 43.9 Harvest and marketing Harvesting2 Marketing TOTAL---------------------TOTAL MAN-HOURS -57.1 Tractor use Pre-harvest Harvest - -- --- 7.7 3.3 11.0 8.5 2.8 11.3 7.0 2.4 9.4 7.6 2.8 10.4 TOTAL TRACTOR HOURS---------- Number of farms ----Average acres of peanuts Average acres per field 19 5.7 3.9 21 24.5 7.4 29 65.5 13.2 69 36.5 10.5 SIncludes such operations as cutting stalks, breaking, and harrowing land. When a stationary picker was used, the time included digging, shaking, and stacking in addition to picking. When a pull-type picker or combine was used, the time included digging, shaking, and windrowing or piling in addition to picking or combining. ' 8 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION were in this category. Farmers who used tractor power in all operations were classified as mechanized. Farmers with large peanut enterprises (30 acres or more) averaged using fewer man-hours in both pre-harvest and harvest operations than did farmers with medium (10-29.9 acres) or small (less than 10 acres) enterprises, Table 2. Differences in manhours among size of enterprise groups were greater for harvest than for pre-harvest operations. This was the result of method of harvest used. Twenty-one out of 29 (72 per cent) of farmers in the large enterprise group used combines or pull-type pickers. This compares with 15 per cent of the small peanut enterprise farmers and 30 per cent of the medium-sized group. Total man-hours per acre for all operations were 57 for small, 44 for medium, and 35 for large enterprises. Thus, farmers with large peanut enterprises spent only 61 per cent as much time in producing an acre of peanuts as did farmers with small enterprises. As an average on all mechanized or partially-mechanized farms, 50 per cent of total man-hours were for pre-harvest and 50 per cent were for harvest. An average of 12 man-hours per acre was used in hoeing or hand weeding. Total tractor hours for all operations averaged 10.4 per acre. Man-hours used per acre in land preparation, planting, fertilizing, cultivating, hoeing, and harvesting declined as size of peanut enterprises increased, Figures 1 and 2. For each 10-acre increase in size of enterprise, average man-hours decreased as follows: Job Land preparation, planting, fertilizing, and cultivating Hoeing Harvesting TOTAL MAN-HOURS Decrease in man-hours for every 10-acre increase 0.4* .9* 2.6* 3.9* * Significant at 1 per cent probability level. Tractor hours used per acre also declined as size of enterprise increased, Figure 3. For every increase of 10 acres in size of enterprise, there was a decrease of 0.4 hour of tractor use per acre. Differences in man-hours used in harvesting peanuts were greater between farmers using stationary pickers and pull-type COSTS and RETURNS of PRODUCING PEANUTS 9 per acre 2 0r Land preparation, planting, fertilizing and cultivating 0 20 20 r Hoeing 20 40 60 80 100 120 Harvesting 20 00 Size of peanut enterprise, acres 20 FIG. 1. Man-hours per hoeing, and harvesting lationship on 67 farms the different operations acre for land preparation, planting, fertilizing, cultivating, decrease as size of peanut enterprise increases. This rein southeastern Alabama in 1958 is illustrated above for in peanut production. 10 10 ALABAMA AL ABAA AGRICULTURAL ARICLTUA EXPERIMENT EPRMETSTTO STATION Man hours per acre 60 All operations 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 Size of peanut enterprise, acres 100 120 FIG. 2. As size of peanut enterprise increases, man-hour requirements per acre decrease, as shown above for 67 farms in southeastern Alabama in 1958. pickers or combines than among size-of-enterprise groups, Table 3. Only 33 per cent as many man-hours were used in harvesting operations by those who used pull-type pickers or combines as by those who used stationary pickers. Total man-hours per acre for all operations was 47 per cent less for the pull-type picker or combine group than for the stationary picker group. Mon hours per acre 20 All operations 15 00 20 40 60 80 100 120 Size of peanut enterprise, acres FIG. 3. Relationship of total tractor hours per acre to size of peanut enterprise, illustrated by the graph, shows that tractor hours decrease as peanut acreage increases. Data are from 67 farms in southeastern Alabama in 1958. COSTS and RETURNS of PRODUCING PEANUTS II 1 TABLE 3. AVERAGE MAN AND TRACTOR HOURS PER ACRE ACCORDING TO METHOD OF HARVESTING PEANUTS, 69 MECHANIZED OR PARTIALLY-MECHANIZED FARMS, SOUTHEASTERN ALABAMA, 1958 Man and tractor hours per acre, by harvest method Operation Total o Stationary picker Hours Pull-typo picker or combine Hours average Hours Labor Pre-harvest Land preparation ------------------------Planting and fertilizing----Hoeing and hand weeding Cultivating-----------------------------------Applying insect and disease control materials---------------TOTAL----------------------------------- ---------.6 25.2 3.3 2.3 13.8 5.2 2.6 1.8 9.9 3.0 2.1 12.0 3.2 .5 18.0 9.8 2.0 11.8 29.8 7.0 2.4 9.4 4.3 .6 22.0 20.2 1.7 21.9 43.9 7.6 2.8 10.4 Harvest and marketing Harvesting 2 ----------------------------:Marketing-------------------------------------TOTAL----------------------------------TOTAL MAN-HOURS---------------------. 29.2 1.4 30.6 55.8 Tractor use Pre-harvest---------------------------------------H arv est--------------------------------TOTAL TRACTOR HOURS-------------- 8.2 3.1 11.3 Number of farms ------------------ Average acres of peanuts Average acres per field--------------------- --------------22.7 _ 37 32 69 36.5 52.6 7.6 12.9 10.5 1Includes such operations as cutting stalks, breaking, and harrowing land. 2When a stationary picker was used, the time included digging, shaking, and stacking in addition to picking. When a pull-type picker or combine was used, the time included digging, shaking, and windrowing or piling in addition to picking or combining. Growers who used pull-type pickers, or combines also averaged fewer tractor hours per acre for both pre-harvest and harvest operations than did growers who used stationary pickers. Reduction of man-hours in harvest operations is important to growers. Peak demands for labor occur at this season of the year. Furthermore, farm wage rates are normally higher during the harvest season than at other times during the year. Workstock Farms Ten farmers. used workstock as their source of power in producing peanuts for all operations except picking. These farmers hired peanut picking on a custom basis. Stationary pickers were 12 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 12 ALABAMA AGRICULTURLEPIMNSTIO TABLE 4. AVERAGE MAN-HOURS PER ACRE FOR VARIOUS OPERATIONS IN PRODUCING PEANUTS, 10 WORKSTOCK FARMS, SOUTHEASTERN ALABAMA, 1958 OperationAverage Opeatonhours per acre Hours man- Percentage of total Per cent 11.6 5.7 19.9 Pre-harvest Land preparation------------------10.8 Plantingand hand weeding---------------------and Hoeing fertilizing-------------------------------- 5.3 18.5 Cultivating------------------TOTAL-- - - - - - - - - - 13.7 48.3 42.1 14.8 52.0 45.4 Harvest and marketing Harvesting'------------------- Marketing----------- ---------TOTAL------------------------- -- TOTAL MAN-HOURS----------------------------- 2.4 44.5 92.8 2.6 48.0 100.0 'Includes plowing up, shaking, stacking around poles, and picking. used in all cases. The 10 peanut producers using workstock had 16 fields, averaging 3.8 acres. Total man-hours per acre used in producing peanuts on workstock farms were more than twice as great as the average for mechanized or partially-mechanized farms (92.8 compared with 43.9), Table 4. In all operations, farmers using workstock took a longer time than did farmers using tractors. Workstock farmers also spent over 50 per cent more time hoeing and hand weeding than did tractor farmers. No workstock farmers reported applying any insect or disease control material. COSTS of PRODUCTION Mechanized or Partially-Mechanized Farms Total costs of producing peanuts were $90.401, $80.45, and $68.01 per acre on farms with small, medium, and large peanut enterprises, respectively, Table 5. The difference in total costs pracre between large and small peanut enterprises was not as great as the difference in total man-hours used.. Farmers with large enterprises used more fertilizer and seed per acre. Also, they spent more on insect and disease control materials than did farmers with medium and small enterprises. Method of harvest was the major factor accounting for lower costs per acre for large peanut enterprises. As an average, for every 10-acre increase in size of peanut enterprise, total costs decreased $2.40 when peanuts! were harvested COSTS and RETURNS of PRODUCING PEANUTS 13 COSTS and .RETURNdS of PRODUCING PEANUTS 1 TABLE 5. AVERAGE COSTS PER ACRE OF PRODUCING PEANUTS IN RELATION TO SIZE OF ENTERPRISE, 69 MECHANIZED OR PARTIALLY-MECHANIZED FARMS, SOUTHEASTERN ALABAMA, 1958 Per acre costs, ,CoSt item by size of peanut enterprise Total Small Medium Large 4.23 2.58 or average Dollars Pre-harvest Land preparation'------------------------------Planting and fertilizing ------ Dollars 6.73 3.74 Dollars Dollars 5.61 8.15 4.32 7.31 1.33 8.52 6.48 3.35 Hoeing and hand weeding- --------------------------- 5.66 9.86 Cultivating --------------------------------------- Applying insect and disease control materials----------------------------All fertilizer materials------------------------ 3.79 7.64 1.34 8.19 3.81 5.39 1.10 .9.86 1.56 6.84 Seed-------------------Insect and disease control materials --------------- 8.21 2.86 9.31 3.18 10.25 4.25 9.40 3.46 _------------------------ Interest on fertilizer, 2 seed, and poison materials --------------------.48 .58 Land charge---------------------7.50 7.50 TOTAL PEE-HARVEST----------52.80 52.00 Harvest 7.50 49.61 16.34 .64 7.50 51.18 2.07 77.79 69 .58 operation-----------------COSTS-------------------- 34.64 26.71 24.54 Marketing 3 ----------------------TOTAL 2.96 90.40 19 1.74 80.45 21 2.06 68.01 29 Number of Average acres of peanuts-----------Average acres per farms -------- _--------- field 5.7 3.9 24.5 7.4 65.5 13.2 36.5 10.5 _------------ Includes cutting stalks, breaking, and disking land. 2 Charged at 3 per cent for 6 months. 3Does not include growers who had peanuts harvested on a custom basis. In such cases, marketing costs are included in harvest operations costs. 14 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION with a combine or pull-type picker, Figure 4. When harvested with a stationary picker, the decrease in costs was $3.30 for every 10-acre increase, Figure 5. There was little difference in relationship between total costs per acre and size of enterprises when peanuts were harvested by farmers with their own machines and when harvesting was done on a custom-hire basis. Total cost per acre, dollars 60 Size of enterprise, acres 120 FIG. 4. Total cost per acre for producing peanuts on farms where combine or pull-type picker was used decreased as size of enterprise increased. This is shown by the graph from 1958 data on 30 farms in southeastern Alabama. Total cost per acre, dollars 40 60 Size of enterprise, acres 120 FIG. 5. Relationship of total cost per acre to size of peanut enterprise for farmers using a stationary picker for harvesting is illustrated here. Cost decreased as acreage increased on the 37 southeastern Alabama farms in 1958. COSTS and RETURNS of PRODUCING PEANUTS 15 COSTS and RETURNS of PRDUCING PEANUTS 1 TABLE 6. AVERAGE COST PER ACRE OF PRODUCING PEANUTS ACCORDING TO METHOD OF HARVEST, 69 MECHANIZED OR PARTIALLY-MECHANIZED FARMS, SOUTHEASTERN ALABAMA, 1958 Cost item Per acre cost, by harvest method Stationary Pull-type picker or combine picker Total or average Dollars Pre-harvest 1 Land preparation -------------------------. Planting and fertiliZing-----------Hoeing and hand weeding Cultivating--------Applying insect and disease control materials All fertiliZer materials Dollars 4.54 2.46 3.32 Dollars 5.61 3.15 ----------- 6.53 3.74 5.17 9.12 5.21 10.04 731 4.32 8.52 1.33 1.16 1.43 ------------------------ Seed ----------------------------------- 7.21 ------------------- 9.40 10.06 8.83 Insect and disease control materials-----------------Interest on fertilizer, seed, 3.51 .53 7.50 3.40 .64 7.50 3.46 .58 7.50 and poison material --------Land 2 charge ------------------ TOTAL PEE-HARVEST-------Harvest 53.57 31.49 48.33 16.50 51.18 24.54 operation_-_-----------COSTS ---------------- 3 M arketing --------------------TOTAL 1.99 87.05 2.12 66.95 2.07 77.79 Number of farmns.--------------Average acres of peanuts--------- 37 22.7 32 10.5 7.6 Average acres per field.---------Includes cutting stalks, breaking, and disking land. 2 Charged at 3 per cent for 6 months. 3Does not include growers who had peanuts harvested on a custom basis. such cases, marketing costs are included in harvest operations costs. 52.6 12.9 69 26.5 In farmers using combines or pullTotal harvest costs per acre type pickers were 56 per cent as great as for those using stationary for pickers, Table 6. In other words, farmers who used combines or pull-type pickers harvested the equivalent of 1.8 acres for the same costs as harvesting 1 acre with a stationary picker. Harvest operations accounted for 38 per cent of total costs per acre on small peanut enterprise farms, 33 per cent on medium, and 24 per cent on large. Comparisons between method of harvest groups showed that harvest costs equaled 36 per cent of total costs on farms using stationary pickers and 25 per cent on farms using pull-type pickers or combines. Workstock Forms Total costs per acre were almost 59 per cent greater for workstock than for mechanized or partially-mechanized farms, Table 16 TABLE 7. ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AVERAGE COSTS PER ACRE OF PRODUCING PEANUTS, 10 WORKSTOCK FARMS, SOUTHEASTERN ALABAMA, 1958 Percentage of total Cost item Pre-harvest Land preparation'------------------------------ -------Planting and fertilizing--Hoeing and hand weeding Cultivating ----------------------------All fertilizer materials--------------------Seed -- -- -- -- -- --- - -- - - - - - -- - --Interest on fertilizer and seed p urc ha sed -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---------------Land charge-----------------------TOTAL PRE-HARVEST---------------- Average cost per acre Dollars 18.99 6.97 7.21 Per cent 15.4 5.7 5.9 --- 24.05 6.10 8.74 .4 3 7.50 79.99 48.40 123.39 19.6 5.0 7.1 -6.1 64.8 35.2 100.0 Harvest and marketing3-------------------TOTAL PER ACRE---------------------------1Includes 2 Charged 2 cutting stalks, breaking land, and row preparation. at 3 per cent for 6 months. Includes plowing-up, shaking, stacking, picking, and marketing of peanuts. 7. All individual costs except fertilizer, seed, and interest on tilizer and seed purchased were higher for workstock than for mechanized or partially-mechanized farms. Workstock had no insect or disease control costs since no insecticides or disease control materials were used. Land was charged at the same rate on all farms. Harvesting accounted for 35 per cent of total costs. Cultivating was the most important pre-harvest cost. fer- farmers NET RETURNS Net returns were derived by subtracting total costs. of production, as calculated, from gross returns. Gross returns were based on average yield of peanuts reported by growers for 1955-57 at the price per pound for the quality of peanuts produced. Regardless of whether hay was actually saved, a credit was given for hay. Hay yields were reported by a number of farmers. For those who did not report yields, amount of hay was estimated in relation to quantity of peanuts produced. Baled. hay was valued at $18 per ton and loose hay, including the value of that returned to the soil, at $12 per ton. Cost of baling was included in production costs when hay was baled. Mechanized or Partially-Mechanized Farms For producers with large peanut enterprises, average net return per acre was 56 per cent greater than for those with small COSTS and RETURNS of PRODUCING PEANUTS 17 COSTS and RETURNS of PRODUCIG TABLE PEANUTS 1 8. AVERAGE NET RETURN PER ACRE AND PER TON OF PEANUTS IN RELATION TO SIZE OF ENTERPRISE, 69 MECHANIZED OR PARTIALLYMECHANIZED FARMS, SOUTHEASTERN ALABAMA, 1958 Average net return per acre, Total Return item by size of peanut enterprise Small Dollars Medium Dollars Large Dollars 130.08 or average Dollars 126.88 Value of peanuts_________________________________ 123.77 125.03 Value of hay___________________________________ ______ 15.95 12.41 144.98 Total return____________________________________________ 139.72 137.44 14.90 14.03 Total costs per acre' ----90.40 80.45 68.01 77.79 Net returns per acre_______________________________ 49.32 56.99 76.97 63.12 Average costs per ton-____________________________ 141.69 124.44 103.83 120.05 97.41 --------------------77.31 94.15 117.53 Net returns per ton----------Farms, number ----------------------- 19 21 29 69 Average peanut yield per .acre, pounds'--------------------------------1,276 1,293 1,310 1,296 Average value of peanuts 0.0967 0.0993 0.0979 0.0970 per pound, dollars -----------------------------Average hay yield per 1,495 2,014 1,754 1,833 acre, pounds2 Average value of hay per pound, dollars 0.0087 0.0083 0.0074 0.0080 1From Table 5. ----------------------- 140.91 'Average of yields for 1955, 1956, and 1957. enterprises, Table 8. The difference in net returns per acre among size of enterprise groups was not solely a result of differences in yield. It was caused largely by lower production costs of farmers with large peanut enterprises. Net return per ton averaged $77.31, $94.15, and $117.53 for producers with small, medium, and large enterprises on mechanized or partially-mechanized farms. Thirty-seven mechanized or partially-mechanized peanut producers who harvested with stationary pickers had an average net return per acre of $52.30, compared with $74.82 for those using pull-type pickers or combines, Table 9. There was a difference of only 42 pounds per acre in average yield between the two groups. Gross receipts and net returns per acre were closely related to yields. For every 100-pound increase in yield, there was an increase of $13.55 in gross receipts per acre for farmers who used combines or pull-type pickers, Figure 6. Added cost for this increase in yield was only 50 cents per acre. Thus, net return per acre increased $13.05 for every 100-pound increase in yield. For farmers who, used a stationary picker, gross receipts per 18 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 18 ALABAMA AGRICULTUL EPRMN TTO TABLE 9. AVERAGE NET RETURN PER ACRE AND PER TON OF PEANUTS ACCORDING TO METHOD OF HARVEST USED, 69 MECHANIZED OR PARTIALLY-MECHANIZED FARMS, SOUTHEASTERN ALABAMA, 1958 Return item Average net return per acre, by harvest methodTotal .Stationary picker Pull-type picker or combine or average Dollars Value of peanuts Dollars Dollars 126.88 130.35 --------------------------123.77 11.42 15.58 V alue of hay------------------------------------141.77 139.35 Total return ---------------1 14.03 140.91 77.79 Total costs per acre Net returns per acre Average costs per ton ----- _--------------- 63.12 74.82 52.30 ------------------------101.59120.05 136.44 ----------------------- ------------------- 87.05 81.97 66.95 --Net returns per ton------------------- --- - 113.54 97.41 37 32 Farm s, num ber ---------------------------------69 Average peanut yield per 1,296 1,276 1,318 acre, pounds 2--------------------------------Average value of peanuts per pound, dollars 0.0979 ------------------------0.0970 0.0989 Average hay yield per acre, pounds 2 -------------------------------Average value of hay per pound, dollars _.----------------------------. 1 1,731 0.0090 1,903 0.0060 1,754 0.0080 2 Average From Table 6. of yields for 1955, 1956, and 1957. Dollars per acre 3 00 :: : : ;:: . .... ... ... :;: . .... . : .:....... 260 220 : < > >> < >>>...... « 140 100. 60 1,000 1,200 1,400 Yield, T:otal Cot 1,600 pounds per acre 1800 2000 2,200 regardless of yield, gross FIG. 6. Since total production costs are about the receipts and net returns become greater as yield increases. The relationship of gross receipts, total cost, and net return per acre to yield is illustrated in the graph for 30 farms in southeastern Alabama on which a combine or pull-type picker was used for harvesting peanuts in 1958. same COSTS and RETURNS of PRODUCING PEANUTS 19 Dollars per acre 2207 180 f3) 1,000 I,'UU 1,4U U 1IUU 1,1000 JV Yield, pounds per acre FIG. 7. Relationship of gross receipts, total cost, and net return per acre to yield is shown above for 37 farms in southeastern Alabama on which a stationary peanut picker was used in 1958. Highest net returns were realized on farms that had the greatest per acre yield, as shown by the graph. acre increased $10.72 and total costs increased only $1.13 per acre for every 100-pound increase in yield, Figure 7. Thus, net return increased $9.59 per acre for every 100-pound increase in yield. Workstock Farms Seven of the 10 producers who used workstock as their major source of power in producing peanuts had a negative net return per acre. Average for the 10 producers was -$2.65 per acre or -$4.51 per ton, Table 10. Yields of peanuts on these farms were lower than the average on mechanized or partially-mechanized farms. The difference in yields, nevertheless, did not account for a major part of the large difference in net returns per acre or per ton. Of major importance was the difference in per acre costs of production. The negative net return per acre or per ton did not mean that producers lost money, since family labor was included in production costs. All labor used in producing peanuts was charged against the enterprise at prevailing rates in the area. Even though the 10-farm average showed a negative net return for peanut production, all expenses except labor costs were covered. 20 20 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 10. AVERAGE NET RETURN PEE ACRE AND PEE TON OF PEANUTS, 10 WORKSTOCK SOUTHEASTERN ALABAMA, 1958 FARMS, Return item Value of peanuts-----------------V alue of hay ---- --- --- --- --- --- -- - --Total return ---- ---- ---- --- ---- --- - --Total costs per acre 1 -- -------Net returns per acreAverage Average net return Dollars 105.89 14.85 120.74 _ 123.39 -2.65 210.20 -4.51 1,174 0.0902 _ 1,650 0.0090 ~--------------------------------------- N et returns per ton ----------- --- --------Average peanut yield per acre, costs per ton------------ ---------2 -------- Average value of peanuts per pound, dollars--_ Average hay yield per acre, pounds2 --------Average value of hay per pound, dollars.-----Fro Table 7.. Avraof yields for 1955, 1956, and 1957. pounds COST and NET RETURNS COMPARISONS by HARVEST MACHINE USED Ha rvest and total man-hours per acre were least for who used combines and pull-type pickers as compared with stationary pickers, Table 11. The same was true for harvest costs and total costs per acre. Average yields per acre were not greatly different according to type of harvest machine used. Size of peanut enterprise, however, was twice as large for farmers who used combines as those that used a stationary picker. Net returns per acre and per ton were highest for farmers who used peanut combines:. Farmers who hired picking on a custom basis had smaller acreages of peanuts regardless of type of harvest machine used. Average harvest time and total time per acre were somewhat greater for custom harvesting with a stationary picker or a combine compared with average time reported by owners of these machines. farmers COSTS and RETURNS of PRODUCING PEANUTS 21 TABLE 11. COMPARISONS OF LABOR AND TRACTOR REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS AND RETURNS FOR FARMERS USING STATIONARY PICKERS, PULL-TYPE PICKERS, AND COMBINES IN HARVESTING PEANUTS, 69 MECHANIZED OR PARTIALLYMECHANIZED FARMS, SOUTHEASTERN ALABAMA, 1958 Resultant, by type of picker Item Unit Stationary O picker Owned Harvest time per acre, av. Harvest time per ton, av. Man- Pull-type pickero Owned 12 20 15 24 33 52 10 63 100 78 118 -15 64 1,285 Hired 9 15 21 34 24 40 9 69 112 67 Combine ie Owned 6 9 14 20 26 38 9 61 90 93 125 Hired 8 13 19 30 29 48 9 64 102 84 116 6 32 1,333 Hired 31 54 35 59 59 101 12 88 146 48 hr. Man- 25 42 23 39 49 85 10 74 123 73 101 -12 35 1,312 hr. Dol. Dol. Manhr. Man- Harvest cost per acre, av. Harvest cost per ton, av. Total time per acre, av. Total time per ton, av. Total tractor time per acre, av. hr. Hr. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. No. A. Lb. Total cost per acre, av. Total cost per ton, av. Net return per acre, av. Net return per ton, av. Farms Peanut acreage, av. 70 -25 15 1,259 105 4 25 1,250 7 76 1,414 Yield per acre, av.' ' Average yield for 1955-57. SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS The study was based on input and cost data applicable to producing runner peanuts on 79 farms in four southeastern Alabama counties in 1958. Peanut fields ranged from 1/2 to 55 acres in size. The average was 10 acres. On mechanized or partially-mechanized farms, fields in which combines or pull-type pickers were used averaged 12.9 acres compared with 7.6 acres for fields in which stationary pickers were used. Farmers in the mobile picker group had, as an average, more than twice the total peanut acreage as farmers in the stationary picker group. 22 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Acreage of peanuts harvested in 1958 ranged from 2.7 to 233 per farm. The average was 33.4 acres. Average yields for 1955 through 1957 ranged from 700 to 2,200 pounds of peanuts per acre with an overall average of 1,280 pounds. Although 61 out of 79 farmers reported saving hay, this was done on only 54 per cent of the peanut acreage. Forty-six per cent of the farmers reported some peanuts planted for hogging purposes. The average was 8.2 acres per farm reporting. Hogs were used to glean fields after harvest on about half of the harvested acreage. Peanut enterprises on 69 mechanized or partially-mechanized farms were classified as small (less than 10 acres), medium (10 through 29.9 acres), and large (30 acres or more). Total manhours per acre averaged 57 for small, 44 for medium, and 35 for large enterprises. The major difference in man-hours was for harvest operations. Farmers with small enterprises averaged 29 man-hours and those with large enterprises 13 man-hours per acre in harvesting. Seventy-two, per cent of the large enterprise farmers used combines or pull-type pickers. Thirty-two, of the 69 farmers used combines or pull-type pickers and 37 used stationary pickers in 1958. When combines or pull-type pickers were used, total man-hours per acre averaged 30 compared with 56 when stationary pickers were used. Manhours per acre used in harvest operations were reduced from 29 to 10, or 66 per cent, by use of combines or pull-type pickers. Ten farmers who used workstock primarily in producing peanuts averaged 93 man-hours per acre total time. The total average cost per acre of producing peanuts was $90, $80, and $68, respectively, on small, medium, and large enterprise farms. Farmers with large enterprises used more fertilizer and seed per acre than did the other two groups. They also spent more for insect and disease control. This offset part of the lower labor costs of the large enterprise group. Farmers who used combines or pull-type pickers produced peanuts for $67 per acre compared with $87 per acre for those using stationary pickers. Gross returns included value of peanuts based on average yield for 1955-57 and on quality as well as value of peanut hay. If baled, hay was valued at $18 per ton; if not baled or if returned to the soil, it was valued at $12 per ton. Average yields of peanuts per acre were not greatly different COSTS and RETURNS of PRODUCING PEANUTS 23 according to size of enterprise groups or methods of harvest. Since total costs, of production decreased as size of enterprise increased and yields were not greatly different, net returns per acre increased as size of enterprise increased. Farmers in the small size group averaged $49 net return per acre, whereas those in the large enterprise group averaged $77 per acre. All costs, cash and non-cash, were included in arriving at net returns. Farmers who used stationary pickers had an average net return per acre of $52 compared with $75 for those using combines or pull-type pickers. There was a negative average net return for the 10 workstock farms when family labor was counted as an expense. Acreage controls limit farmers in making enterprise adjustments to achieve efficiency in production of peanuts. The use of pulltype pickers and combines greatly reduces labor requirements and costs per acre and per ton of peanuts. However, it is not economically feasible for farmers with small acreages to own combines or pull-type pickers. Some have found custom hiring a partial solution to this problem. Custom hiring is much less prevalent with pull-type pickers and combines than with stationary pickers. A disadvantage of custom hiring is that waiting for the operator increases risks of weather damage to peanuts. Not only in harvest operations but also in land preparation, planting, fertilizing, and cultivating, somewhat lower man-hours per acre prevailed as size of enterprise increased. 24 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION APPENDIX COST PROCEDURE and METHOD Power and Equipment Costs To reflect actual power and equipment costs applicable to the peanut enterprise, costs were varied in relation to, the estimated total hours of annual use. This was accomplished by using standard operational times for land preparation, fertilization and planting, cultivating, and harvesting for cotton, corn, peanuts, and miscellaneous crops, Appendix Table 1. The standard time per acre for each practice was multiplied by the number of acres of each crop to get total hours of use for power and equipment items. In obtaining annual hours of use per tractor, tractor use hours were totaled, 10 per cent was added for miscellaneous uses, and this total divided by the number of tractors the farmer owned and used. Where more than two like items of equipment were involved, the total estimated hours of use were divided by the number of items. For example, if the annual cultivation hours were estimated at 300 and the grower owned three cultivators, estimated annual hours of use per year per cultivator were 100. Machinery cost curves that showed the relationship of cost per hour per $100 of purchase price to hours of annual use were prepared from data in Appendix Table 2 for each power and equipment item used in peanut production. Cost per hour was derived by applying the estimated annual hours used to the respective cost curve and multiplying the observed cost per hour per $100 purchase price by the average purchase price of the machinery item. Purchase prices for tractors and equipment were obtained from farmers and dealers in the area. Appendix Table 3 illustrates the procedure involved in calculating the estimated cost per hour per $100 of purchase price for a 2-bottom breaking plow. Taxes, housing, insurance, and interest on investment were computed on a fixed basis at 4.5 per cent of the purchase cost. Depreciation was figured by the straight-line method allowing 10 per cent for salvage value. When growers did not recall the price they paid for certain items of machinery, price adjustments were made from dealer list prices to the year of original purchase as reported by each grower. These adjustments were in accordance with index numbers of cost rates and prices paid by farmers from 1944 through 1957.1 Costs as calculated applied to medium-sized SThe Farm Cost Situation, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Washington, D.C., May 1958. COSTS and RETURNS of PRODUCING PEANUTS 25 power and equipment items most frequently used on farms in southeastern Alabama. Gasoline and oil for tractors and other power sources were charged at 18.2 cents per gallon and 23 cents per quart, respectively. These were wholesale prices quoted by a major petroleum company distributor in the study area and include delivery to the farm. The price of gasoline also allows for a grower's opportunity to receive a rebate on Federal and State taxes. Appendix Table 5 shows the estimated gasoline consumption per hour for tractors in relation to the type of equipment drawn. Oil consumption was estimated at 0.1 quart per hour for all operations involving mechanical power. Where motor trucks were used in production of peanuts, costs were estimated at 8, 12, and 16 cents per mile for small, medium, and large trucks, respectively. For custom work performed, man-hours were reported and included in labor figures. The dollar cost of custom work was also included in total cost. For picking with a stationary picker, the prevailing custom rate was $30 with a range of $28 to $35 per ton. This included baling hay and hauling peanuts. The most common custom rate for combining was $20 per ton and for harvesting with a pull-type picker, $25 per ton. These rates also included hauling peanuts to market. The use of workstock and workstock-drawn equipment was charged at flat rates regardless of hours of use per year. Other Costs Prices of fertilizer, seed, and disease and insect control materials were those actually cited by the interviewed growers. Average prices quoted by four dealers in the sample area were applied to the records of growers that were unable to recall these costs, Appendix Table 6. Labor was charged according to jobs performed and prevailing wage rates in the area. Hoeing and weed pulling were charged at 40 cents per hour and harvest labor at 60 cents per hour. Labor for tractor driving was charged at 45 cents per hour for pre-harvest work and 60 cents per hour for harvest work. These rates also applied to family labor. In cases where labor was hired and the rate was known, this rate was charged. All farm operator's labor was charged at $1.00 per hour. 26 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 26 ALABAMA AGRICULTUL EPRMN TTO Land, regardless' of market value, was charged at an annual rental rate of $7.50 per acre. Interest on the cost of fertilizer, seed, and poison wascharged at 6 per cent per year for a period of 6 months on all farms. APPENDIX TABLE 1. ESTIMATED HOURS PER TIME OVER FOR VARIOUS OPERATIONS IN PRODUCTION OF COTTON, PEANUTS, CORN, AND CERTAIN OTHER CROPS, SOUTHEASTERN ALABAMA, 1958 OperationHours Opertionper Cutting stalks ----------------------------- per acre time over Hours ---- - B reaking land -------------------------------D isk harrow ing ------------------------ Plan ting -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. C ultivating - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. D u stin g -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -. Plowing-up (digger-shaker) -------------------------------. Shaking (side-delivery rake) -------------------------------. Com bining or picking---------------------------------H auling hay to barn --------------------------------------. Spreading fertilizer m aterial-------------------------------..6 R otary h oein g -- --------------------------------------. --W eeding (tractor weeder)----------------------------------.4 S idedressin g .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- -- - - - - - --- --- - ---Baling hay (stationary 0.4 1.4 .5 6 5 25 8 6 1.5 6 3 .6 1.5 baler) -------------------------------- Baling hay (pick-up baler) ------------------------------ -M ow in g hay -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --. R aking hay -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.. Tractor Power ' Data from Georgia Experiment Station, Costs and Utilization and Equipment on Farms in the Coastal Plain, Bulletin 260, June, 1949, p. 17 and Producing Farm Products in North from North Carolina State College, Costs Carolina, A. E. Information Series No. 52, December, 1956, pp. 25, 29. of of 1.0 8 5 COSTS and RETURNS of PRODUCING PEANUTS 27 COSTS and RETURNS of PRODUCING PEANUTS 2 APPENDIX TABLE 2. COST PER HOUR OF USE PER $100 OF NEW COST, MACHINES USED IN PEANUT PRODUCTION, SOUTHEASTERN ALABAMA, 1958 Machine 20 hr. per yr. Cost per hour of use per $100 of new cost 40 hr. 60 hr. 100 hr. 150 hr. 250 hr. per yr. per yr. per yr. per yr. per yr. Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Land preparation Stalk cutter (reel type)------ 0.46 0.23 0.16 0.10 Rotary mower ------------------.37 .19 .13 .08 Bottom plow .58 .31 .22 .15 Disk plow__________________________ .35 .25 .17 Disk harrow ---------------------.69 .35 .24 .15 Section harrow_________________ .46 .23 .16 .10 0.06 0.04 --------------------- .06 .11 .04 .09 .65 .13 .11 .09 .07 .06 .04 Planting and fertilizing Planter and distributor, 2-row Fertilizer ------- 0.70 0.36 0.25 0.16 -------------------------------.82 .42 .85 .46 .29 .33 .. 0.11 .13 .17 0.08 .09 .13 spreader Sidedressing attachment-- 19 .22 Cultivating Cultivator, 2-row -------------0.48 0.25 0.18 0.70 0.36 0.24 Rotary hoe (gang) Harvesting Side-delivery rake 1 Peanut Pull-type ------------.62 .32 .22 _____ - 0.12 .14 0.09 .10 0.06 .07 Digger-shaker ---------- 0.16 0.11 0.07 ------.69 Stationary picker'________ .69 Pick-up Stationary combine --------picker'---- . 62 .70 .32 .36 .36 .22 .24 .24 .14 .16 .15 .10 .11 .11 .07 .07 .07 baler'----------baler'--------- .69 .54 .36 .36 .24 .24 .15 .15 .11 .11 .07 .07 .28 0.41 .20 0.28 .12 0.17 .09 0.12 .06 0.08 Miscellaneous Duster, 6-row ---------- 0.80 Trailer (4-wheel)-------- .46 60 hr. per yr. .23 150 hr. per yr. 0.09 .16 300 hr. per yr. 0.05 .10 500 hr. per yr. .06 .04 750 hr. 1,500 hr. per yr. per yr. 0.02 0.01 Tractor'---------------1'Does 0.23 0.03 not include fuel, oil, twine, or wire. APPENDIX TABLE 3. PROCEDURE INVOLVED IN CALCULATING THE COST PER HOUR PER $100 ORIGINAL COST IN RELATION TO HOURS USED PER YEAR FOR A 2-BOTTOM BREAKING PLOW, SOUTHEASTERN ALABAMA, 19581 Original cost-$215 Estimated years of useful life-14 Estimated hours required to wear out-2,000 Cost item Taxes, housing, insurance, interest on investment------------------------------ Per cent of original cost 20 Annual Costs with various hours of use per year 40 60 100 150 tI- 250 Per cent Dollars 9.68 13.82 Dollars 9.68 13.82 Dollars 9.68 13.82 Dollars 9.68 13.82 Dollars Dollars 9.68 13.82 Depreciation 4.50 6.43 9.68 13.82 0 1I4F Repairs and upkeep ------------------------------Lubrication3-----------------Annual costs per hour -------------------Costs per hour per $100 5 original cost ------------- _----------1 2 5.00 0.3 --- 1.50 ..09 25.09 3.00 .18 26.68 4.50 .27 28.27 7.50 .45 31.45 11.25 .68 35.43 18.75 1.13 43.38 -Total costs per year----------------------------------------4 1.254 .58 .667 .31 .471 .22 .315 .15 .236 .11 .174 .09 c -a c For factors involved in computing costs of other machines used in peanut production, see Appendix Tahle 4. 2 Based on 5 per cent of original costs times numher of years of life divided by hours to wear out times hours of use per year. numher years of life divided hy hours to wear out times hours of use per year. on 0.3 per cent of original cost cost per year divided hy annual hours of use.. cost per hour divided hy original cost in hundreds of dollars. 'Based 'Total 'Annual m m m times z (z 0 n APPENDIX TABLE 4. FACTORS INVOLVED IN COMPUTING COST PER HOUR PER $100 ORIGINAL COST OF MACHINES USED IN PEANUT PRODUCTION, SOUTHEASTERN ALABAMA, 1958' 0 9-I a Machine Average purchase price, 1958 Estimated hours to, wear out Hr. 12,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,500 1,000 1,200 2,500 1,500 1,500 750 1,500 1,500 Percentage of original cost Estimated Taxes housing, inAnnual years of surance, and useful life terest on investRLubricaRtion tion ment annually in- DepreciaPct. a m :tto C Dol. Tractor------------ --------------------2,318 Stalk cutter (reel type) --------------------------181 Rotary mower----------------- -----466 Bottom plow----------------215 303 Disk tiller---------------------------------Disk harrow---------------------------------277 Section harrow --------------------------------225 Fertilizer spreader .---------------------- _--------280 Planter ----------230 Cultivator- ------ -------------------------------------. 277 Rotary hoe (gang)-------- -------------------260 Rotary hoe (drill)-------------------------------65 Fertilizer attachment--------------------------. 41 Duster--------------------------204 _------------------- Digger-shaker -------------------Side-delivery rake-----------------Stationary picker-----------------Pull-type w Yr. 10 18 12 14 12 10 20 8 10 20 12 12 8 8 10 Pct. 4.5 Pct. 3.5 Pct. 0.7 .- I 70 9.00 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.00 7.50 6.43 7.50 9.00 4.50 11.25 9.00 .5 1.1 5.0 7.0 3.0 3.5 2.0 .7 .1 .3 .4 .4 .1 .2 .2 0 Z C z 0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 11.25 11.25 4.50 7.50 7.50 9.00 3.5 3.5 .4 3.5 .1 .1 .1 .1 m z C 2.0 2.5 .1 .3 452 Combine ------------------------Stationary baler ------------ -----Pick-up baler -----_-------------- picker ------------------- 472 1,583 2,425 3,075 903 1,800 1,500 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,500 2,500 12 10 10 10 15 10 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 7.50 9.00 9.00 9.00 6..00 9.00 2.0 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 4.0 .3 1.0 1.01 .1.0 .4 .5 Trailer--------------------------- 290 5,000 20 4.5 4.50 2.0 .2 (Rev. 1954, and estimates. 2 Based on original cost less salvage value (10 per cent of original cost). 'Data from American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Saint The CostMichigan, Farmr Machinery,Use Data,74, September Joseph, January 1953). Kansas State Engineering of Using Crop Machines Bulletin June, 1949. Experiment Station, 30 30 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION APPENDIX TABLE 5. GASOLINE CONSUMPTION PER HOUR FOR MEDIUM-SIZED .TRACTORS ACCORDING TO TYPE OF EQUIPMENT DRAWN SOUTHEASTERN ALABAMA, 1958' Type of equipment drawn Gasoline consumption per hour Gallons Stalk cutter (rotary) ----------- 1.15 -----------------------Stalk cutter (reel or bump) -----Plow , 2-bottom ----------------------------------1.55 T iller, 4-disk ---------- -- ----- -----------1.70 Tandem disk harrow --------- -------- --------- ---1.69 60 Lim e or fertilizer spreader---------------------------- ----------- -. Planter and distributor, 2-row ------------------------------ -1.19 -. 90 Planter, 2-row --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.20 Cultivator, 2-row ------ ------ ------ ------ ------1.12 ---- - -Rotary hoe (gang)----- ---- ---- ---- ----1.20 Rotary hoe, drill (with cultivator, 2-row) -----.---------1.20 Cultivator and fertilizer distributor, 2-row 1.09 W eeder-- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -. 60 Du ste r-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. Digger-shaker------------------------------------------1.40 1.55 ------------- - Peanut plow , 2-row ---------------------------- -------- 1.08 1.08 Side-delivery rake-------------------------------------Peanut picker, stationary---------------------------------.96 1.56 Peanut picker, pull-type.--------------------- ----------1.56 Peanut combine, aux. engine----------------------------1.35 H ay baler, pick-up------------------------------------Hay baler, stationary------------------------------------.50 50 T railer (w agon) ------------ ----------------------------. 1Data from J. C. Elrod, Georgia Experiment Station, Cost and Utilization of Tractor Power and Equipment on Farms in the Coastal Plain, Bulletin 260, June, 1949, p. 17, and consultations with staff members of Agricultural Engineering Department, Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station. COSTS and RETURNS of PRODUCING PEANUTS 31 COSTS and RETURNS of PRODUCING PEANUTS 3 APPENDIX TABLE 6. AVERAGE PRICES PAID BY FARMERS FOR FERTILIZERS, LIME, PEANUT SEED, AND DISEASE AND INSECT CONTROL MATERIALS, SOUTHEASTERN ALABAMA, 1958 Item Item Cost Per pound Dollars Per ton Dollars Fertilizers and liming materials 0-10-20-- ----------- - ---0-14-14 - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - -- 4-12-12-- - -- - -- - -- - - -- - -- - -- 0.0173 - --- .0162 -- 34.60 32.40 4-10-7----- ---- ---- ----Po tash -- - - - - -- - - - - --- -- --- -- -- --- -- --- -- -- --- -- --- -- -- --- - Superphosphate (20% )-----------------------------Lime ---------------- --------------- ----- ------ --- --- -- --- --- --- - .0185 .0162 .025 0 .0182 37.00 32.40 5 0.0 0 26.40 Basic slag ------------ - -----------------------------Land plaster (gypsum)---------------------------------Peanut seed R eg istered -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. 0 .28 Certifie d -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .26 - .24 Non-certified ---------- --------------- ------------ --N on-certified, pegs -----------------------------------.19 Insect and disease control materials Su lfur d ust --- -- -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - -- -- - - - -- 0 .04 Copper-sulfur dust, 2.5 % D.D.T.-----------------------.08 Copper-sulfur dust, 1'Delivered .0 04 0 .0089 .0105 8.0 0 17.80 21.00 5.0%1 D.D.T.----------------------- .0875 to the farm. SUGGESTED Cost items 1. Fertilizer PROCEDURE for CALCULATING COSTS and RETURNS Per acre pounds of pounds of 2. Seed @ $ @ $ pounds @ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3. Insect and disease control materials pounds of pounds of 4. Chemical weed control materials of of @ $ @ $ @ $ @ $_ 5. Machinery and equipment tractor hours @ $ $ $ tractor hours truck use @ @ $ $ $ $ equipment hours @ equipment hours @ equipment hours @ $ equipment hours @ $ equipment hours @ $ equipment hours @ $ 6. Labor man-hours of tractor driving @ man-hours of hoe labor man-hours of harvest labor 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ @ 3 %2 $ $__ $ @ $ @ $ 7. Custom picking 8. Bags 9. Stack poles, materials, and supplies 10. Interest on cash costs-total lines 1-4 $ 11. Land-market value $ A. TOTAL COSTS @ 5% $ Per acre pounds @ $ pounds @ $ $ $ $ $ Returns 1. Peanuts 2. Value of hay B. TOTAL RETURNS C. NET RETURNS-B minus A SIf picking is custom hired, omit machinery, equipment, and labor costs not borne by farmer. Use the custom charge in lieu of these costs. A 3 per cent rate assumes that funds are borrowed for only 6 months.