BULLETIN 40, MAY 1970 COSTS and RETURNS of Producing SOYBEANS in ALABAMA r \ \ JUN 19 Agricultural Experiment Station AUBURN UNIVERSITY E. V. SMITH, Dir-ector: Auburn, Alabama CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ------------------- ------ METHOD OF STUDY--------- Selection of Sample-- - - - Cost Procedure-- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- -OF FARMS----------------------- - - - - - - DESCRIPTION C rop Enterprises-------------------- ------- SOYBEAN PRODUCTION IN THE SOUTHEASTERN AREA- Production Practices-----------------------C osts and Returns------------------------AREA-10 '15 '_5 SOYBEAN PRODUCTION IN THE SOUTHBESTR L J IL ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - I --- - Production Practices Costs and Returns________ SOYBEAN PRODUCTION IN THE -18 22 Production Practices -23 -24 .29 -30 .3' 36 40 Costs and Returns ________ SOYBEAN PRODUCTION IN THE NORTHEASTERN AREA Production Practices-Costs and Returns ---- - ---- - - --- - - ---- SU M MA Y - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A P P E ND IX - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - PrdutonUBcics._____ ~R FIRST PRINTING 3M, MAY 1970 AUBURN UNIVERSITY RLHBROWN DRAUGHON U T AUBRN UNIVERSI Y. AI ABAA 3 6R BRARY' OSTS and RETURNS of roducing SOYBEANS in ALABAMA* SIDNEY C. BELL, Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics BRUCE H. WARD, Former Graduate Research Assistant INTRODUCTION HE SOYBEAN is not a new crop in Alabama but has recently ecome established as a major cash crop. The first commercial acreage, 3,000 acres, was harvested in 1924. In the 10-year period (1958-1967) acreage of soybeans increased 266 per cent, from 130,000 acres in 1958 to 484,000 in 1967. Total value of the crop during the same period increased from $4.9 million to $30.7 million, an increase of more than 500 per cent. In 1967, corn was the only row crop in Alabama planted to more acres than soybeans. Data on types and acreage of crops being reduced are necessary in any projection on the future of Alabama agriculture. The primary objectives of this study were: 1. To ascertain why farmers are expanding production of soybeans and what crops are being replaced by soybeans. 2. To determine the physical and dollar value inputs (cost) used in producing soybeans in four producing areas. 3. To determine the effect of size of enterprise and selected production practices on yields and net returns. 4. To determine the returns (profit) for producing soybeans in four producing areas of Alabama. This study was conducted under Hatch research project Ala-256 and supported by Hatch and State funds. Appreciation is expressed to the 231 farmers who supplied information for this study. 4 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIOh Counties sampled and number of farms included in sample. IRODUCING SOYBEANS IN ALABAMA 5 METHOD OF STUDY Selection of Sample Areas covered in this study were: the southeastern area including Houston, Geneva, and Covington counties; the southwestern area including Escambia and Baldwin; the Black Belt area including Dallas, Marengo, Hale, and Perry; and the northeastern area including Madison and Jackson counties, see Figure. These four areas grew about two-thirds of the total soybean acreage in 1966. An area probability sampling technique was used to select Farms in each county. The number of farmers included in the sample was based on the number of soybean producers and the number of acres of soybeans grown in the sample area in 1966. A minimum number of 30 producers was selected for each area. The number of soybean producers sampled in each county was based on the county's proportionate share of the total acreage for the area in which the county was located. Both cost and physical input data were based on the 1966 crop. Two hundred and thirty-two usable questionnaires were obtained by means of personal interviews. Forty-nine questionnaires were taken in the southeastern area, 103 in the southwestern area, 33 in the Black Belt area, and 47 in the northeastern area. Cost Procedures Few farmers interviewed kept detailed records whereby machinery use for the soybean enterprise could be determined. Since most machinery used in producing soybeans was also used in producing other crops, it was not possible to get the actual hours each machine was used in producing soybeans on each farm. In calculating machinery cost, hours of annual use for each machine were assumed to be the number of hours annually required for the wear-out life to equal the obsolescence life, Appendix Table 1. Costs per hour for operation of the different farm machines used were based on data in Appendix Table 2. The time requirements for performing different operations involving machinery were based on time requirements given by farmers or on the estimated time requirement given in the Virginia machinery cost study. Costs of seed, inoculant, fertilizer, insecticide, and custom work were obtained from farmers interviewed. These costs were actual costs paid by the farmer. Items the farmer did not purchase, such as seed, were charged at the price the farmer reported that he would have had to pay had that item been purchased. 6 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Hauling cost was charged at $.003 per bushel per mile. Thi cost was based on the use of a one and one-half ton truck used tc carry 150 bushels. This type truck was used by most farmers. Interest on operating capital was charged at 6 per cent pei annum for a 6-month period. The amount of operating capita required was obtained by adding material costs to variable ma chinery costs. DESCRIPTION OF FARMS Crop Enterprises The 231 farms sampled were primarily row crop farms. Some crops grown in addition to soybeans were corn, cotton, small grains, peanuts, potatoes, and truck crops. The number of farms, acreages, and yields by crops are shown in Appendix Table 3. Corn was the most popular crop followed by small grains and cotton. Acreage of soybeans per farm was approximately 184 with the Black Belt area averaging 320 acres; the southwestern, 190 acres; the northeastern, 162 acres; and the southeastern, approximately 100 acres. The southwestern had the highest yields followed by the northeastern, the Black Belt, and the southeastern. The yield of the various crops indicated these farmers were probably above average for Alabama. Many farmers interviewed were planning to increase soybean acreage. This was especially true in two fairly new areas of production, the southeastern and the Black Belt. The number of farmers planning to increase soybean acreage and reasons for increasing are shown in Appendix Table 4. There were 37 of 49 farmers in the southeastern area planning to increase and 28 out of 33 in the Black Belt planning to increase. A more profitable crop and ability to double crop were the most popular reasons given for planning to increase acreage. The crop, and its fertilization, planted prior to soybeans in many cases affects the yield of the soybean crop. Therefore data were collected on the crop planted prior to planting soybeans. The prior crop planted and its fertilization rate plus other data and the average yield of soybeans are shown in Appendix Table 5. These data indicated very little correlation between the prior crop to soybeans and the yield of soybeans. PRODUCING SOYBEANS IN ALABAMA 7 The date of planting usually affects the yield of soybeans, especially if the planting season is extended to the first of July. The planting date with average yield and other selected factors are shown in Appendix Table 6. Based on these data, soybeans planted on recommended planting dates had the highest yield in all areas. Ability to plant late and still get reasonably good yields is one of the major advantages of the soybean crop. Another advantage is less labor required than for many other crops. There was an increased efficiency in labor use as soybean acreages increased because the average number of hours of labor required per acre decreased in almost everyinstance, Appendix Table 7. The average number of labor hours for all farms was approximately 3.2 hours. Corn and cotton were crops reduced to expand soybean production. A major exception to this was the Black Belt area where most increased soybean acreage resulted from permanent pastures converted into soybean production. SOYBEAN PRODUCTION IN THE SOUTHEASTERN AREA Farmers in this area had from 1 to 21 years experience growing soybeans with a mean of 4.5 years. All but 10 of the farmers had been growing soybeans 5 years or less. Production Practices Cropping Systems Soybeans were commonly grown in this area as both a single and double crop. The double-cropped soybeans were usually planted following small grains harvested for grain. Varieties Soybean varieties recommended for southern Alabama were Bragg, Jackson, and Hampton. The varieties planted and the average yields obtained were as follows: Variety Ham pton -------------Bragg. Jackson Hood ------------ acre in bushels -- -----25.6 24.8 22.0 20.0 Av. yield per Number of farms 39 14 4 1 ........ --......----------------- -- O gden ----------------------- -- 17.5 1 8 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Hampton was by far the most popular variety and also had the highest average yield indicating popularity of the variety was related directly with average yield. Bragg was especially popular as a second variety among farmers who had a large acreage because it has an earlier maturity date than Hampton. By planting two varieties, Hampton and Bragg, farmers were able to spread their harvest season over a longer period. SEEDING RATE. The seeding rate on farms in the sample ranged from 50 to 120 pounds per acre or from 0.8 to 2.0 bushels per acre. All farmers, except five, planted between 0.8 and 1.3 bushels of seed per acre. These five farmers planted a higher rate, from 1.4 to 2.0 bushels of seed per acre. TYPE OF SEED. It was not possible to determine the quality of soybean seed planted, but farmers were asked whether their seed were registered, certified, or non-certified. Eighty-four per cent of the farmers reported using certified seed, 10 per cent using noncertified, and 6 per cent reported using registered seed. FERTILIZATION. The average amount of fertilizer applied per acre was 16 pounds of N, 18 pounds of P, and 38 pounds of K. There were only four farmers in this area who did not use any fertilizer for their soybeans. These farmers felt that the residual fertilizer from the previous crop was sufficient to provide adequate nutrients for producing a good yielding crop. There were 17 farmers who broadcast and 28 who used row application of fertilizer. Four farmers did not apply any fertilizer. Soybean yields by type of fertilizer application were: broadcast 23.2 bushels per acre, drilled in row 27.1 bushels, and no fertilizer, 27.7 bushels. Weed Control MECHANICAL. All growers except three cultivated soybeans one or more times; 12 per cent cultivated soybeans once; 68 per cent cultivated twice; 14 per cent cultivated 3 times; and the remaining 6 per cent did not cultivate. The overall average was 1.9 cultivations. Twenty per cent of the farmers used a preemergence herbicide. Nine of 10 farmers using a herbicide used trifluralin and one used vernolate. Three farmers used a band treatment and seven farmers broadcast. The average per acre cost for CHEMICAL. PRODUCING SOYBEANS IN ALABAMA 9 preemergence material was $6.33. Farmers who used chemical weed control had an average yield of 26.7 bushels per acre while those who did not use chemical weed control averaged 25.5 bushels per acre. HAND. Only one farmer reported using hand weed control. Better mechanical and chemical methods of controlling weeds and a shortage of hand labor were reported as primary reasons for not using hand labor. Insect Control Farmers did not report any insect damage to stands. The foliage feeders were reported most frequently as causing damage in the early season. During the latter part of the season, pod and foliage feeding insects were reported with about equal frequency. Approximately 90 per cent of the insecticides were applied with an airplane on a custom basis. Those applying insecticides with ground rigs used either a tractor sprayer or a high clearance sprayer. The number of insecticide applications was positively correlated with y;eld. The number of insecticide applications and average yields were as follows: Number of insecticide applications 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1... . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 8 ....... Av. yield per acre in bushels 23 .0 27 .5 3...7 0 36.3 Number of farms 25 24 8 2 Harvest The labor required for soybean harvest is substantially less than for most other crops. Twenty-four per cent of the farmers who combined their own beans used only one man in the harvest operation and the remaining 76 per cent used two men. None of the farmers reported using any seasonal hired labor in the harvest operation. Fifty-one per cent of the farmers were owners or part owners of their combines. Ten per cent were share owners and the remaining 41 per cent were sole owners. Sixteen per cent of the combines owned were pull type and the remainder were selfpropelled models. Farmers not owning combines paid an average of $6.74 per acre to get their beans harvested. 10 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Costs and Returns Since the production practices farmers follow in producing soybeans do not fluctuate very much from year to year, the cost of producing an acre of soybeans will not change greatly from yeas to year. Even though prices of inputs and methods of producing the crop change, costs are much more stable than gross returns. Yield is influenced by climatic conditions, price is influenced by market conditions and both may fluctuate from year to year. Gross Returns Gross returns for soybeans, which were affected by yield and price changes, averaged $72.18 per acre in 1966. Yield averaged 25.8 bushels per acre and price averaged $2.79 per bushel. The sample year, 1966, was a good year for both yield and price. Net Returns The average net returns to land, labor, and management was $41.33 per acre. This figure does not reflect any charge for land or labor. If land is charged at the average cash rent of $9.26 per acre, this leaves a return to labor and management of $32.07 per acre. Using a labor charge of $1.60 per hour for an average of 3.13 hours, the total labor charge is $5.01. This leaves an average return to management of $27.06. A $.50 per bushel lower price would reduce this to $14.16 per acre. Costs The machinery and materials costs averaged $30.15 per acre for all farms. The costs were determined by the price and quantity of inputs that were used in soybean production. The average costs per acre for materials were as follows: Material S eed-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -$ Fertilizer -7.26 Lime Herbicide Insecticide Inoculant Total for materials ------$17.01 Costs per acre 5.26 1.60 1.54 1.14 .21 The average machinery costs per acre, including machinery hired, are shown in Table 1. PRODUCING TABLE 1. SOYBEANS IN ALABAMA TOTAL, VARIABLE, AND FIXED MACHINERY COSTS SOUTHEASTERN ALABAMA, 1966 BY OPERATION, 11 Operation Total cost Variable cost Fixed cost Dol. Land preparation----------------------------2.79 Dot. 1.67 Dol. 1.12 .56 .61 Planting----------------------------------------Cultivating--------------------Insecticide .application---------------------Com bining------, ---------------------Hauling --------------------- -------------------Oth er' --- -- --- -- ----- ---- -- --------Total----------------------------------- 1.31 1.22 .76 4.82 2.04 .20 13.14 .75 .61 .76 1.93 .67 .10 6.49 2.89 1.37 .10 6.65 1 Broadcasting fertilizer and applying herbicide as an operation separate from land preparation. Effects of Size of Enterprise For this analysis all records of this area were sorted into three groups based on acreage of soybean enterprise. The differences in costs and returns by size of the soybean enterprise are shown in Tables 2 and 3. As size of enterprise increased yield per acre increased; price per bushel increased; gross returns increased; total cost per acre was almost constant; and net returns increased. While total cost per acre remained almost constant, there were noticeable differences in some of the individual cost items. As size of enterprise increased land preparation cost decreased; planting cost decreased; combining cost decreased; and hauling cost increased, Table 3. The difference in returns to land, labor, and management between the small size group with a return of $35.39 per acre and the large size group with a return of $47.94 indicates that economies of size exist in the production of soybeans. The returns to land, labor, and management for the largest one-third of farms were 35 per cent higher than for the smallest one-third of farms. Another important difference was that the average price received by the largest size group was 10 per cent higher than that received by the smallest size group, while yield of the large size group was 8.4 per cent higher. The middle size group had the highest material cost, Table 2, but also had the lowest machinery cost of the three groups. Under material cost the middle group paid more for seed and fertilizer than either of the other two groups but paid substantially less for insecticides. 12 ALABAMA 12 AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIOI~ Siz TABLE 2. AVERAGE COSTS AND RETURNS FOR SOYBEAN PRODUCER GROUPS BY OF ENTERPRISE, SOUTHEASTERN ALABAMA, 1966 Acreage range Item vrIY, LI U Less than 35 (small) VIi~~IYI 1L 35-99 (middle) More than 99 ~ (large) f c7 No. of farms ----Av. acreage of soybeans/farm Av. yield per acre in bushels Av. price per bushel (Dot.) Av. gross receipts (Dot./acre) Variable costs (Dot.) Material Seed -----Fertilizer-- -- - -- - -- -- - -- Lime -----H erbicide-- - - - - - -- - - - - Jnsecticide ------Inoculant-- -- - -- - -- -- - -- - 16 21 24.9 2.64 65.74 61 25.4 2.84 72.14 15 230 27.0 2.93 79.11 Variable Total variable Total material cost machinery cost (Dot.) ---------- (Dot.)------ costs (Dot.)------------ 4.90 6.50 1.60 1.55 1.19 .26 16.00 6.94 22.94 .69 6.72 9.26 5.84 45.45 35.39 26.13 20.29 5.74 8.33 1.60 1.72 .63 .21 18.26 5.90 24.16 .72 6.24 9.26 4.66 45.11 41.04 31.78 27.12 5.08 6.80 1.60 1.82 1.68 .29 16.77 6.66 23.44 .70 7.04 9.26 4.56 44.99 47.94 38.68 34.12 Other costs (Dot.) Interest on operating Fixed machinery cost 2 Land cost L abor AU l capital'--------_--__._______ cost 3 --------------------- --------------------- Returns 2 co sts -----------------------to land, labor, and mgt. (Dot.)- Returns to labor and mgt. (Dot.)__-___ Returns to management (Dot.)-------1 Variable cost at 6 per cent per annum for 6 months. Land cost charged at average cash rent. Lahor charged at $1.60 per hour. TABLE 3. AVERAGE MACHINERY COSTS FOR SOYBEAN PRODUCERS BY OPERATION AND- SIZE OF ENTERPRISE, SOUTHEASTERN ALABAMA, 1966 Operation Less than 35 (small) Acreage range 35-99 (middle) More than 99 (large) Dot. 2.21 1.07 1.25 1.12 4.27 3.53 .25 13.70 Dol.. Land preparation Planting------------Cultivation----------Insecticide Dol. 2.68 1.39 1.16 .42 4.88 1.54 .07 12.14 Combining. application---------- Hauling -----------O ther 1 -------------T otal -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.46 1.45 1.23 .80 5.27 1.28 .17 13.66 1 Broadcasting fertilizer and applying herbicide as an operation apart from land preparation. PRODUCING SOYBEANS IN. ALABAMA 13 Variations Among Producer Groups Variations in yields, returns, and costs were evident among individual producers. To determine the outstanding characteristics of the operations carried on at various levels of income, the data were sorted into three groups on the basis of net returns to land, labor, and management. These groups were designated as low, mid, and high producer groups, Table 4. An examination of the data obtained for the three producer groups indicated that yields, prices, cost, and size of soybean enterprise influenced net returns. The high income group obtained higher yields and received higher prices, with only a very slight increase in material and machinery cost. The cost per bushel of TABLE 4. COSTS AND RETURNS FOR SOYBEAN PRODUCERS BY RETURNS TO LAND, LABOR, AND MANAGEMENT, SOUTHEASTERN ALABAMA, 1966 Item All producers Producer groups4 Low 16 60 17.2 46.74 5.99 23.05 .69 9.26 4.74 43.73 17.01 7.75 3.01 2.72 .35 1.34 .04 .54 .28 2.55 .99 .45 .17 Mid 17 81 25.4 71.45 7.29 23.13 .69 9.26 5.42 45.79 40.34 31.08 25.66 2.81 .29 .91 .03 .36 .21 1.80 1.59 1.22 1.01 High 16 159 34.7 98.36 6.64 24.34 .78 9.26 4.86 45.83 66.65 57.39 52.53 2.83 .19 .70 .02 .27 .14 1.32 1.92 1.65 1.51 N o. of farm s .----------------- -----49 Av. acreage of soybeans/farm 100 Av. yield per acre in bushels 25.8 Per acre Gross returns (Dol.) ................ 72.18 Fixed machinery cost (Dol.) 6.65 Total variable cost (Dol.) 23.50 Interest on operating capital (Dol.) .70 Land cost (Dol.) ----------- ------9.26 Labor cost' (Dol.) .5.01 All costs (D ol.) - ------------------45.12 Returns to land, labor, and mgt. (Dol.)_ 41.33 Returns to labor and mgt. (Dol.) 32.07 Returns to management (Dol.) 27.06 Per bushel Gross returns (price) (Dol.) 2.79 Fixed machinery cost (Dol.) .26 Total variable cost (Dol.) ............ .91 Interest on operating capital' (Dol.) .. .03 Land cost (Dol.) .................. .36 Labor cost' (Dol.) - .............. .19 All costs (Dol.) .................... 1.75 Returns to land, labor, and mgt. (Dol.)_ 1.59 Returns to labor and mgt. (Dol.) 1.23 Returns to management (Dol.)1.04 1 Charged at 6 per cent of variable cost for 6 months. Land was charged at average cash rent. Labor was charged at $1.60 per hour. 'Based on net returns to land, labor, and management. 14 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIOI output for the high income group was only about half that of the low income group and considerably lower than the mid income group. The returns per bushel to labor and management for the high income group was 3.7 times as much as for the low group Returns to management for the high income group averaged $52.53 per acre as compared to $3.01 per acre for the low income producers. On a per bushel basis, net returns to management ranged from $1.51 for the high income group to $.17 for the low income group while the mid income group averaged $1.01. When considering all costs on a per acre basis the average for all farms was $45.12 with a range from $43.73 for the low income group to $45.83 per acre for the high income group. While cost per acre varied very little, cost per bushel varied from $2.55 for the low income group to $1.32 for the high income group. The mid income group had a cost per bushel of $1.80. These conTABLE 5. AVERAGE MATERIAL AND MACHINERY COSTS FOR SOYBEAN PRODUCER GROUPS, BY RETURNS TO LAND, LABOR, AND MANAGEMENT, SOUTHEASTERN ALABAMA, 1966 Item Low No. of farms Av. acreage per farm Av. yield per acre in bushels Material cost (Dol.) Seed Fertilizer Lime Herbicide...................... Insecticide Inoculant Total for materials (Dol.) Machinery cost (Dol.) Land preparation Planting Cultivating.---------------Insecticide application Combining Hauling................... Other'Total machinery costs (Dol.) 16 60 17.2 Producer group' Mid 17 81 25.4 Costs per acre High 16 159 84.7 5.80 7.29 1.60 2.28 .382 .26 17.50 2.66 1.23 1.11 .21 4.75 1.26 .82 11.54 29.04 5.05 7.00 1.60 1.16 1.28 .15 16.24 2.88 1.38 1.17 .85 4.91 2.97 .12 14.18 80.42 4.95 7.50 1.60 1.25 1.84 .21 17.85 2.86 1.38 1.25 1.21 4.82 1.95 .16 18.68 80.98 ----. Total machinery and materials costs (D ol.) -- ---- ---------------------.. Cost of broadcasting fertilizer and applying herbicide as an operation separate from land preparation. 2 Based on returns to land, labor, and management. PRODUCING SOYBEANS IN ALABAMA 15 siderable differences were mainly a result of large differences in yield of the three income groups. Although the total cost per acre varied very little, there was some variation in machinery and material costs among the income groups, Table 5. The low income group spent more on material inputs and less on machinery inputs than either of the other two groups. The average amount paid for seed decreased and the amount spent on insecticides increased substantially from the low income group to the high income group. Machinery cost was highest for the mid income group mainly because of substantially higher hauling costs. From the low income group to the high income group the average cost of land preparation, planting, cultivating, and insecticide application increased. These are strong indications that better management through better land preparation, more careful planting, more intensive cultivation, and better insect control increased yield and thus net returns. SOYBEAN PRODUCTION IN THE SOUTHWESTERN AREA Farmers in this area had produced soybeans from 2 to 35 years with an average of 16.9 years. Sixty-eight per cent had grown soybeans 15 years or longer. Production Practices Cropping Systems Soybeans are commonly grown in this area as both a single and double crop. The double-cropped soybeans were grown in rotation with potatoes, small grain, or vegetable crops. The highest soybean yields in this area were made when soybeans were planted after potatoes and permanent pasture. Soybeans grown on cropland that was idle the year previous had the lowest average yield. Potatoes and small grain were two of the most popular previous crops and soybeans grown following these crops had a higher yield than the average for the area. This indicated one advantage of using soybeans in a double cropping system in this area. The complementary relationship between these crops makes a double cropping system quite profitable. 16 16 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Varieties Soybean varieties recommended for this area were Bragg, Jackson, and Hampton. The varieties planted, yields of each variety, and the number of farmers producing each variety were as lows: fol- VarietyAv. L ee -- --- --- -- --- --- --- -- --- --- --- -- --2A-D orth----85.0----------------24-H ood Bienville-----82.6------------------1Jackson --------------------------------Ham pton-------------------------Bra g g --- -- -- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- -Stu a rt-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Number of yield per acre in bushels farmers 38.1 4 3524 34 .543 8--------------------------------321 32.4 13 31.9 78 27 .3 49 22.6 3 Hampton was the most popular variety in this area as well as in the southeastern area. Bragg was second and Hood third lowed by 2A-Dorth. Of the four most popular varieties, Bragg had the lowest yield and 2A-Dorth had the highest yield. fol- SEEDING RATE. The seeding rate ranged from 0.8 to 1.4 bushels per acre but the 1 bushel per acre rate was by far the most common. Eighty per cent of the farmers seeded at a rate of 0.9 and 1.1 bushels per acre. TYPE OF SEED. The quality of seed used could not be determined but farmers were asked whether their seed were registered, certified, or non-certified. Eighty-six per cent reported using certified seed and 14 per cent non-certified. Fertilization Two methods of providing soybeans with plant nutrients were practiced in this area. The most popular method was that of applying fertilizer to the soybean crop either row application or broadcast. The other method was applying enough fertilizer to the crop planted prior to the soybean crop so that the residual fertilizer from the previous crop was sufficient to provide adequate nutrients for producing a good yielding soybean crop. There were 72 farmers who applied fertilizer directly to their soybean crop. They applied an average of 19 pounds of N, 21 pounds of P, and 44 pounds of K. Thirty-one farmers did not apply any fertilizer directly to their soybean crop. However, many of these farmers were growing soybeans following potatoes. Potatoes were highly fertilized and the residual fertilizer was con- PRODUCING SOYBEANS IN ALABAMA 17 ;idered sufficient to provide the necessary plant nutrients for the soybean crop. There were 23 farmers who broadcast fertilizer, 41 who drilled in row, and 37 who did not use any fertilizer. Soybean yields by type of fertilizer application were: broadcast, 30.6 bushels; drilled in row, 30.1 bushels; and no fertilizer 32.2 bushels. Weed Control MECHANICAL. All producers in this area cultivated soybeans at least once, with number of cultivations ranging from 1 to 5. The average number of cultivations was 2.8, 50 per cent higher than the average number in the southeastern area. CHEMICAL. Only four farmers reported using chemical weed control. All four used a preemergence herbicide. Trifluralin was used by three farmers in a broadcast treatment and one farmer used Amiben in a band treatment. The average cost for the preemergence material was $6.10 per acre. The four farmers using chemical weed control produced an average yield of 31.9 bushels per acre, 0.7 bushel per acre higher than the area. HAND. All farmers cultivated their soybeans, and 53 per cent also used 0.9 hours of labor for hand weed control. Insect Control The farmers reported no reduced stands because of cutworms or other insects. The first insecticide application was applied most frequently to control foliage feeding insects. The second insecticide application was applied with about equal frequency to control foliage feeding and pod feeding insects. Those farmers applying 3 applications reported pod feeding insects most often as the insect causing trouble. There was a positive correlation be- tween insecticide application and yield. The number of insecticide applications and average soybean yields were as follows: Number of insecticide Av. yield per applications acre in bushels 0- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 29 .5 1. . . . . .. . . . . ---- - - -- -- - - -- - --31.0 2 ----------- ---------------3 1 .2 8 -- --- -- -- -- -- -- --- - ---- - 3 4.8 -- Number of farms 11 92 38 12 The majority of insecticide applications, 82 per cent, were applied with an airplane on a custom basis. The remainder of applications was divided about even between tractor sprayers and high-clearance sprayers. 18 18 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Costs and Returns Gross Returns Gross returns from soybeans, which were affected by yield and price changes, averaged $89.08 per acre in 1966. Yield averaged 31.2 bushels per acre and price averaged $2.85 per bushel. Net -Returns The average net returns to land, labor, and management was $60.41 per acre. A land charge at average cash rent of $12.25 per acre leaves an average return to labor and management of $48.16 per acre. Charging $1.60 per hour for an average of 3.80 hours gives a labor cost of $6.08. Considering these charges, the average return to management is $42.08 per acre. A $.50 lower price would reduce this to $26.48 per acre. Costs Costs are determined by price and quantity of the inputs. When considering all farmers interviewed in this area, the machinery and material cost per acre of soybeans averaged $28.03 per acre. The average costs per acre for materials were as follows: Material Seed -- --- -- ----- --- -- --- --- -- --- -- ---5.84 Fertilizer--------- --------------Lim e -. Herbicide------------------------2.05 Insecticide-----------------------Inoculant -------------------------. Costs per acre $ 4 .8 1 1.60------------.--------_27 06 $14.63 -- -- ---. -- -- Total'for materials----------------- The average total, fixed, and variable machinery costs per acre, including machinery hired, are shown in Table 6. TABLE 6. TOTAL, VARIABLE, AND FIXED MACHINERY COSTS PER ACRE OF SOYBEANS' BY OPERATION, SOUTHWESTERN ALABAMA, 1966 Operation Total cost Dot. 3.14 1.00 1.79 1.37 4.36 Variable cost Dot. 1.88 .57 .90 1.37 1.74 Fixed cost Dol. 1.26 .43 .89 -2.62 Land preparation--------------Planting----------------------Cultivating-------------------Insecticide applications---------Combining--------------------- H auling -------------------- --Other'---------------------- Total.---------------------1Broadcasting -- 1.68 .05 .55 .02 7.03 1.13 13.39 6.36 .03 fertilizer and applying berbicide as an operation apart from land preparation. RODUCING SOYBEANS IN ALABAMA 19 RODUCING SOYBEANS IN ALABAMA 1 affect of Size of Enterprise The data for farms were sorted into three groups, based on Lcreage of soybeans, to determine relationship of size with other actors. This sorting indicated there was a positive correlation beween size and other factors because as size of soybean enterprise ncreased yield per acre, price per bushel, gross returns per acre, tud returns to land, labor, and management increased, Table 7. Average total material and machinery costs varied from $26.91 ier acre for the middle size group to $29.76 per acre for the small size group, Table 7. The difference in returns to land, labor, and management beween the small, middle, and large size groups demonstrated that 1conomies of size existed in the production of soybeans in this TABLE 7. AVERAGE COSTS AND RETURNS FOR SOYBEAN PRODUCERS BY SIZE OF ENTERPRISE, SOUTHWESTERN ALABAMA, 1966 Acreage range Item Less than 100 100-249 (middle) (small) More (large) 33 31.9 2.90 92.51 than 249 N o. of farm s ---------------------------------------37 33 Av. acreage of soybeans/farm ---------------- 155 50 Av. yield per acre in bushels---------------30.5 31.4 Av. price per bushel (Dol.)----------------------2.80 2.86 Av. gross receipts (Dot. lacre)-----------------85.40 89.80 Variable costs (Dot.) Material S eed .--------------------------------------4.81 4 .76 Fertilizer-------------------- ---6.32 5.42 L ime --------------------------1.60 1.60 H erbicide ----------------------. .21 --. Insecticide----------------------1.94 2.03 Inoculant-------------------- ---.10 .06 Total material cost (Dol.)----------14.98 13.87 Variable machinery cost (Dot.) ------7.66 6.87 Total variable costs (Dot.)------------22.64 20.74 Other costs (Dot.) Interest on operating capital---------.68 .62 Land cost ----------------------Labor cost3----------------------All costs------------------------Returns to land, labor, and mgt. Fixed machinery 2 376 4 .87 5.72 1.60 61 2.18 .04 15.02 6.51 21.53 .62 5.68 cost -------------- 7.12 6.17 Returns to labor and mgt. (Dot.)------Returns to management (Dot.)---------1Variable (Dot.)-- 12.25 7.63 50.32 54.96 12.25 5.73 45.51 62.27 12.25 4.69 44.77 64.68 42.68 35.08 50.02 44.29 52.41 47.72 cost at 6 per cent per annum for 6 months. 2Land cost charged at average cash rent. ' Labor charged at $1.60 per hour. 20 TABLE 8. AVERAGE AND ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT PRODUCERS BY ALABAMA, 1966 STATION OPERATIOI MACHINERY COSTS FOR SOYBEAN SOUTHWESTERN SIZE OF ENTERPRISE, Operation Less than 100 Acreage range 100-249 More than 24( Dol. Land preparation Planting Cultivating Insecticide application Combining Hauling Other' ----------------Total .-------------------3------.42 1.05 1.92 1.30 5.63 1.36 .10 14.78 Dol. 3.14 1.06 1.66 1.36 4.03 1.79 13.04 Dol. 2.82 .88 1.78 1.46 8.28 1.93 .04 12.19 1 Broadcasting fertilizer and applying herbicide as an operation apart from lanc preparation. area. The return to land, labor, and management for the large size group was 17 per cent higher than returns of the small size group. The yield per acre of the large size group was 5 per cent greater than the yield of the small size group, and price per bushel for soybeans was 4 per cent higher for the large size group than for the small size group. At the same time average material and machinery cost for the large size group was $5.59 per acre less than average material and machinery cost for the small size group. The middle size group had the lowest material costs primarily because of lower average seed and fertilizer costs. Total machinery costs were highest for the small group with higher land preparation, cultivation, and combining costs, Table 8. Variations Among Producer Groups Variations in yields, returns, and costs were evident among individual producers. To determine the outstanding characteristics of the operations carried on at various levels of income, the data were divided into three groups on the basis of net returns to land, labor, and management. These groups were designated as low, mid, and high producer groups. Yields, prices, and costs influenced net returns, Table 9. The high income group obtained higher yields and higher prices with lower material and machinery costs than the low income group. The material and machinery costs per unit of output for the high income group were only 53 per cent of the per unit cost of the low income group and 69 per cent of the per unit cost of the mid income group. PRODUCING SOYBEANS IN ALABAMA 21 PRODUGING SOYBEANS IN ALABAMA FABLE 9. 21 COSTS AND RETURNS FOR SOYBEAN PRODUCERS BY RETURNS TO LAND, LABOR, AND MANAGEMENT, SOUTHWESTERN ALABAMA, 1966 Item All producers Producer groups Low Mid High 4 N o. of farms ---------------------------------------- 103 32 35 36 Av. acreage of soybeans/farm -------------------------189 152 216 195 Av. yield per acre in bushels 31.2 23.6 31.7 37.5 -------------------------- Per acre Gross returns (Dot.).-------------------------------------. 89.08 65.50 90.91 108.17 Fixed machinery cost (Dol.)------------------------6.35 6.42 6.47 6.18 Total variable cost (Dol.)--------------_------------21.67 23.96 21.73 19.59 Interest on operating capital' (Dot.) .65 .72 .65 .59 Land cost 2 (Dot.) 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 3 Labor cost (Dot.) --------------------------------6.08 7.28 5.63 5.44 All costs (Dol.)---------------------------------47.00 50.63 46.73 44.05 Returns to land, labor, and mgt. (Dot.) 60.41 34.40 61.42 81.81 Returns to labor and mgt. (Dot.)-----------------48.16 22.15 59.17 69.56 Returns to management (Dot.) 42.08 14.87 43.54 64.12 Per bushel Gross returns (price) (Dot.)------------------------2.85 2.78 2.87 2.88 Fixed machinery cost (Dot.)------------------------.20 .27 .20 .16 Total variable cost (Dot.) .----------------------------. .69 1.02 .69 .52 Interest on operating capital' (Dot.)------------. .02 .03 .02 .02 Land cost' (Dot.) .39 .52 .49 .33 Labor cost' (D ot.) ------------------------------------.19 .31 .18 .15 All costs (Dot.)--------------------------------1.49 2.15 1.48 1.19 Returns to land, labor, and mgt. (Dot.).------. 1.94 1.46 1.96 2.17 Returns to labor and mgt. (Dot.)-----------------. 1.55 .94 1.57 1.84 Returns to management (Dot.) 1.36 .63 1.39 1.69 ------------ ------- -------------------- --------------------- Variable cost charged at 6 per cent per annum for 6 months. 'Land charged at average cash rent. 1 'PLabor roducer charged at $1.60 per hour. groups are based on returns to land, labor, and management. The per acre returns to management for the low income producers were $14.87 as compared with $64.12 for the high income group, while returns to the mid income group were $43.54. Returns to management on a per bushel basis ranged from $.63 for the low group to $1.69 for the high group. all farms was $47.00 with a range from $44.05 for the high income group to $50.63 for the low income group. There was much more variation in cost per bushel than in cost per acre because of the large variations in yield. The costs per bushel ranged from $2.15 for the low income group to $1.19 for the high income group. producer groups are shown in Table 10. Most of the difference The differences in average machinery and material costs When considering all costs on a per acre basis, the average for among 22 22 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AVERAGE MATERIAL AND MACHINERY COSTS FOR SOYBEAN BY RETURNS, SOUTHWESTERN ALABAMA, 1966 PRODUCER TABLE 10. Item No. of farm s------------------8----------Av. acreage per farm Av. yield per acre in bushels-------------------- Low 2 152 23.6 Producer group Mid 35 216 High 36 195 ------------------------------- 81.7 Costs per acre 37.5 Material cost (Dot.) Seed -----------------------------------5.13 4.54 Fertilizer ------------------------ ---7.72 5.80 Lime -------------------1.60 1.60 H erbicide .68-.16 Insecticide-----------------------------1.81 2.89 Inoculant---------------------.06 .11 Total for materials (Dot.)---------------------. 17.00 14.44 Macbinery cost (Dot.) Land preparation----------------------------3.20 8.02 Planting-------------------------------1.09 .97 Cultivating ------------------------------------------1.80 1.76 Insecticide applications-----------------------1.20 1.60 C om bining--------------------------------------------4.35 4.66 H auling ---------------------------------------1.68 1.65 Other 1 -----------------------------.06 .10 -- _ ---------------------------------------------- 4.80 4.22 1.60 1.93 .04 12.75 3.20 .95 1.80 1.28 4.09 1.70 -__ Total machinery costs (Dot.)---------------Total machinery and material costs 13.38 30.38 13.76 28.20 13.02 25.77 (D ol.)---------------------------------- 1Cost of broadcasting fertilizer and applying herbicide as an operation separate from land preparation. 2 Groups based on returns to land, labor, and management. among groups was because of differences in material cost. Fertilizer cost accounted for most of the difference. Relatively low fertilizer costs were associated with relatively high returns, the higher the returns of the group the lower the average cost of fertilizer. This could have been explained somewhat by the high fertilizer rate of prior crop with no fertilizer applied to the soybean crop. There was very difference between total machinery cost among producer groups. Machinery costs varied from a high of $13.76 per acre for the mid income group to a low of $13.02 for the high income group. little SOYBEAN PRODUCTION IN THE BLACK BELT AREA In this area, soybeans were a relatively new crop, only 6 of the 33 farmers had grown soybeans more than 2 years. The average experience growing soybeans was only 2.8 years. PRODUCING SOYBEANS IN ALABAMA 23 PRODUC ING SOYBEANS IN ALABAMA 2 Production Practices Cropping Systems Soybeans were grown following in rotation with several different crops. However, three-fourths of the soybeans were grown following permanent pasture that had just been converted to row crops or small grain. Soybeans double cropped with small grain averaged 1 bushel per acre less than the overall average. Varieties The varieties recommended for central Alabama were Lee, Bragg, Jackson, and Hampton. The varieties planted and average yield obtained were as follows: Variety Lee - --- --- -- --- --- --- -- --- --- --- -- ---- H ampton ---------------------------------------------. Brag g -- ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- --- ---- ---- R ebel -- --- --- ---- ---- --- ------- --- ----Jack son ----- ------------------------------- H ood ----- --------------- --------------- - Bienville ------------------------------Av. yield per acre in bushels 24 .7 2 5 .1 2 9 .6 2 8 .0.9 Per cent of total' 57 13 9 6 4 2 2 9 .1 20 .8 27 .8 ' Refers to total of all varieties grown on all farms. Lee was by far the most popular variety although the average yield was slightly below the average of all varieties. Hampton, the favorite variety in southern Alabama, was the second most popular variety followed by Bragg and Rebel. SEEDING RATE. The seeding rate ranged 0.8 to 1.3 bushels per acre. The 0.8 bushel per acre rate was by far the most common. Eighty per cent of the farmers seeded at a rate of 0.8 or 0.9 bushels per acre. TYPE OF SEED. The quality of the seed used by the farmers could not be determined but farmers were asked whether their seed were registered, certified or non-certified. Sixty-four per cent of the farmers reported using certified seed and 34 per cent reported non-certified. FERTILIZATION. Twenty-six of the 33 farmers in this area applied fertilizer to soybeans. They applied an average of 13 pounds of N, 20 pounds of P, and 42 pounds of K. Two methods of application were used, broadcast and applied in the row at planting time. Those broadcasting their fertilizer averaged 28.3 bushels 24 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIOb per acre and those applying it in the row averaged 25.0. The farm. ers that did not use any fertilizer averaged 23.9 bushels. Weed Control MECHANICAL. All but 3 producers in this area cultivated soybeans at least once, with number of cultivations ranging from 1 to 5. The average number of cultivations was 2.7, about the same as the southwestern area. CHEMICAL. Twelve, about 35 per cent of the producers, used a preemergence herbicide for weed control. Trifluralin was the most popular type material with 6 of the 12 farmers using it. The average cost for the preemergence material was $4.97 per acre. HAND. Farmers reported no use of hand labor in control of weeds for this area. Insect Control About 85 per cent of the insecticides were applied on a custom basis with an airplane. Most applications were applied for the control of pod worms or the cabbage looper. The number of insecticide applications was positively correlated with yield. The number of applications and average yields were as follows: Number of insecticide applications 0 1 2 Av. yield per acre in bushels 24.2 28.4 29.2 Number of farms 19 8 6 Costs and Returns Gross Returns Gross returns from soybeans affected by yield and price changes averaged $68.10 per acre in 1966. Yield averaged 25.7 bushels per acre and price averaged $2.65 per bushel. Net Returns Average net returns to land, labor, and management were $41.73 per acre. Charging land at an average cash rent of $7.64 per acre leaves an average return to labor and management of $34.07 per acre. Labor costs were $4.85 using $1.60 per hour for an average of 3.03 hours. Considering these charges, the average PRODUCING SOYBEANS IN ALABAMA 25 PRODUCING SOYBENS IN( AABAA25 return to management was $29.22. If price was $.50 per bushel Lower, this return would be reduced to $16.37 per acre. Costs Costs are determined by price and quantity of inputs. When considering all farmers interviewed in this area, the machinery and material costs for soybeans averaged $25.80 per acre. The average cost per acre for materials was as follows: Material Costs per acre $ 3.9 1 S eed -- --- -- --- -- --- -- --- --- -- --- -- --F ertilizer------------------------- -4.85 Lime - -- - -- -- - -- -- -- - -- -- - -- -- -- - -- - -1 .25 Herbicide------------------------1.79 Insecticide-------------------------. 88 19 --------- --------. --------Ino cu lant _-__----- ---Total for materials ---------------------$12.87 -- The average total, fixed, and variable machinery costs per acre, including machinery hired, are shown in Table 11. TABLE 11. TOTAL, VARIABLE, AND FIXED MACHINERY COSTS BLACK BELT AREA, ALABAMA, 1966 BY OPERATION, Operation Total cost Variable cost Fixed cost Dol. Dol. Dot. 1.34 2.00 3.34 Land preparation -------------------------------.97 .55 Planting --------------------------1.45 .72 Cultivating__-_----------------Insecticide application --------------------.59 .59 4.51 1.80 Combining ---------------.-----------------------Hauling -- -. 1.87 .62 O thers'----------- --.20 .10 Total----------------------- -12.93 6.38 .42 .73 2.71 ------------------- 1.25 .10 6.55 1 Broadcasting fertilizer and applying herbicide as an operation apart from land preparation. Effects of Size of Enterprise Data from farms were sorted into three groups, based on acreage of soybeans, to determine relationship of size with' other factors. This sorting indicated there was a positive correlation between size and other factors because as size of soybean enterprise increased yield per acre, price per bushel, gross returns per acre, and returns to land, labor and management increased, Table 12. Average total material and machinery costs varied from $22.78 per acre for the large size group to $30.75 per acre for the middle size group, Table 12. The difference in returns to land, labor, and management between the small, middle, and large size group demonstrated that 26 26 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIOi TABLE 12. AVERAGE COSTS AND RETURNS FOR SOYBEAN PRODUCERS BY SIZE 01 ENTERPRISE, BLACK BELT AREA, ALABAMA, 1966 Item Less than 80 (small) Acreage range 80-299 More than 29( (middle) (large) 11 25.8 2.79 71.98 N o. of farm s ---------------------------------10 12 Av. acreage of soybeans/farm---- 48 121 Av. yield per acre in bushels ----------------25.1 26.1 Av. price per bushel (Dot.)------------2.58 2.62 Av. gross receipts (Dol./acre)-----------------68.50 68.88 Variable costs (Dot.) Material Seed 3.88 8---------------------------4.15 Fertilizer ----------------------------5.60 5.75 Lime ----------------- ---- -------------------1.25 1.25 Herbicide--------------------1.82 2.25 Insecticide------------------.95 2.84 Inoculant-----------------------------.21 .13 Total material cost (Dot.) 18.21 16.87 Variable machinery cost (Dot.)------7.47-6.557 Total variable costs (Dot.)----------------------19.86 28.87 Other cost (Dot.) Interest on operating capital'--------------.60 .72 Fixed machinery cost 7.25 6.88 Land cost'--------------------------------- 7.64 7.64 Labor cost'------------------4.78 5.15 A ll costs----------------------------------40.18 44.26 Returnsto land, labor, and mgt. (Dot.) 35.79 86.91 Returns to labor and mgt. (Dot.)------------28.15 29.27 Returns to management (Dot.)-----23.37 24.1288.52 782 8.69 8.18 1.25 1.70 --------------------10.80 .44 .04 15.31 .46 5.47 7.64 4.58 ------_ Y--_------------- _-------------- - 88.46 50.74 48.10 Variable cost at 6 per cent per annum for 6 months. Land cost charged at average cash rent. 'Labor charge at $1.60 per hour. 1 2 economies of size existed in the production of soybeans in this area. The returns to land, labor, and management for the large size group was 41 per cent higher than the return of the small size group. The yield per acre of the large size group was 3 per cent greater than the yield of the small size group, and the price per bushel for soybeans was 10 per cent higher for the large size group than for the small size group. At the same time the average material and machinery cost for the large size group was $4.33 per acre less than the average material and machinery cost for the small size group. The large size group had the lowest material costs primarily because of lower average seed and fertilizer costs. Total machinery costs were highest for the middle size group with higher land preparation, and combining costs, Table- 13. PRODUCING SOYBEANS IN ALABAMA :PRODUCING SOYBEANS IN ALABAMA 27 2 TABLE 13. AVERAGE MACHINERY COSTS FOR SOYBEAN PRODUCERS BY OPERATION AND SIZE OF ENTERPRISE, BLACK BELT AREA, ALABAMA, 1966 Acreage range 80-299 More than 299 (small) (middle) (large) Dol. Dot. Dol. Land preparation---------------------------3.03 4.05 2.80 Planting ---------------------------------------1.07 1.11 .73 Cultivation ---------------------------------------1.34 1.32 1.69 Insecticide application .----------.38 1.14 .18 Combining -----------------------------5.63 5.04 2.91 H auling-------------------------------2.07 1.51 2.07 Other'--------------------------------.28 .18 .10 Total ---------------------------------------13.80 14.35 10.48 Less than 80 1 Broadcasting fertilizer and applying herbicide as an operation apart from land preparation. Operation Variations Among Producer Groups Variations in yields, returns, and costs were evident among individual producers. To determine the outstanding characteristics of the operations carried on at various levels of income, the data were divided into three groups on the basis of net returns to land, labor, and management. These groups were designated as low, mid, and high producer groups. An examination of the data obtained from the study of the three producer groups, Table 14, indicated that yields influenced net returns more than any other item. The high income group in this area had about 100 per cent higher yields than the low income group. Also, lower machinery and material costs influenced this return to a lesser degree. The variable cost per unit of output for the high income group was less than 50 per cent of the per unit cost of the low income group and about 80 per cent of the per unit cost of the mid income group. Also, the fixed machinery cost was less per unit of output for the high income group than for the low or mid income group. The returns to management for the low income producers were $6.13 as compared with $52.67 for the high income group, while returns to the mid income group were only $29.46. Returns to management on a per bushel basis ranged from $.56 for the low group to $1.52 for the high group. When considering ali costs on a per acre basis, there was not much difference between the low, mid, and high income groups. In fact, the low group had the smallest cost with $37.82 per acre, 28 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIOP 28 AL~ABAA AGRICULTUALEPRMN STTO TABLE 14. COSTS AND RETURNS FOR SOYBEAN PRODUCERS BY RETURNS TO LAND LABOR, AND MANAGEMENT, BLACK BELT AREA, ALABAMA, 1966 Item No. of farm s Av. acreage of soybeans/farm------Av. yield per acre in bushels---------------- All producers Producer groups' Low Mid High 10 331.5 253.8 379.5 -319.7 3 88------------------------------12 11 25.7 16.7 27.4 34.6 90.70 Per acre 70.22 Gross returns (Dol.)_-__-----------------------------68.10 47.82 Fixed machinery cost (Dol.)------------------------6.53 5.92 6.80 19.25 19.41 20.09 Total variable cost (Dot.) .58 .58 .60 Interest on operating caiptal' (Dot.) 7.64 7.64 7.64 _ Land cost' (Dot.) Labor cost' (Dot.)---------------------------------4.85 4.27 5.63 All costs (Dot.) -------------------------------- 38.85 37.82 41.73 21.41 Returns to land, labor, and mgt. (Dot.) 34.07 Returns to labor and mgt. (Dol.)---_---------- 13.77 29.22 6.13 Returns to management (Dol.)-------------------Per bushel 2.83 Gross returns (price) (Dot.)------------------------2.65 Fixed machinery cost (Dol.)------------------------.25 .35 .75 1.16 Total variable cost (Dot.)-----------------------------Interest on operating capital' (Dot.)------------. .02 .03 .30 .46 Land cost' (Dol.).26 - .19 Labor cost' (Dot.)-------------------1.51 2.26 All costs (Dol.)----------------------------------------------. 18.15 ----------------------------.54 ----------7.64 ------------------------------ 4.98 4.69 38.00 ------ 40.76 42.73 35.09 65.00 57.36 29.46 2.56 .25 .73 .02 .28 .21 52.67 2.62 .20 .52 .02 .22 .14 1.49 1.56 1.28 1.10 1.88 1.66 Returns to land, labor, and mgt. (Dot.)-------. Returns to labor and mgt. (Dol.)-------,--------Returns to management (Dol.)------------------1 1.62 1.33 1.14 1.28 .82 .56 1.07 1.52 Variable cost charged at 6 per cent per annum for 6 months. 2 Land charged at average cash rent. charged at $1.60 per hour. groups are based on returns to land, labor, and management. 'Labor 'Producer with the mid group with a high of $40.76. However, because of the large difference in yield per acre, there was a large difference in all cost on a per bushel basis ranging from a low of $1.10 for the high to $2.26 for the low group. Individual items that comprised machinery and material costs were studied. The differences in average machinery and material costs among producer groups are shown in Table 15~. There was not much difference in total machinery and material cost for the three groups, although there was considerable difference in individual items. The high group had the lowest material cost with $11.60 per other hand, the low group had the lowest machinery cost with $11.70 per acre compared to $13.70.for the mid income group. acre compared to $13.63 for the low group. On the 'RODUCING SOYBEANS IN ALABAMA 29 'RODUCIIG FABLE 15. S OYBEANS IN ALABAMA 2 PRODUCER AVERAGE MATERIAL AND MACHINERY COSTS FOR SOYBEAN GROUPS, BY RETURNS TO LAND, LABOR, AND MANAGEMENT, BLACK BELT AREA, ALABAMA, 1966 Item Item Low Producer groups2 Mid 11 380 High 10 332 No. of farms ---------------------------------------12 Av. acreage per farm ---------------- _-----------254 Av. yield per acre in bushels-------------------16.7 Material cost (Dot.) ,Seed ---------------- = ----------------------Fertilizer-----------------------------L ime----------------------------------------H erbicide----------------------------------------Insecticide -----------------------------------------Inoculan t --------------------------------------- 27.4 34.6 Costs per acre 4.02 5.33 1.25 2.26 .61 .16 3.85 5.09 1.25 1.20 1.40 .20 3.86 4.00 1.25 1.64 .62 .23 Total for materials (Dot.)-------------------------13.63 13.19 11.60 Machinery cost (Dot.) Land preparation--------------------------2.88 3.44 3.74 P lanting 1.02 1.02 .87 1.77 1.38 1.14 Cultivating ---------------------------------------Insecticide application -------------.40 .94 .42 4.48 4.14 Com bining ---------------------------------------- 4.99 H auling ------------- -------------------------1.32 2.24 2.13 Oth er' ------------------------ ---------.17 .20 .24 -------.-----------------------------_-------- Total machinery costs (Dol.)-------------------Total machinery and material costs (Dol.) -------------------------------1 11.70 25.33 13.70 26.89 13.53 25.73 Cost of broadcasting fertilizer and applying herbicide as an operation separate from land preparation. 2Based on returns to land, labor, and management. One of the material costs that decreased as the income in.creased was fertilizer per acre. The high income group spent $4.00 per acre compared to $5.33 for the low income group. Also in the machinery cost, the cost for cultivating decreased as income increased with a low of $1.14 per acre for the high group and $1.77 per acre for the low income group. SOYBEAN PRODUCTION IN THE NORTHEASTERN AREA The farmers in this area have been producing soybeans quite some time. Twenty of the 47 farmers had been producing soybeans more than 11 years with only 11 farmers producing soybeans less than 5 years. There was no significant difference in yield based on years of producing soybeans. 30 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIOt Production Practices Cropping Systems Soybeans are commonly grown in this area as a single crop although there was some double cropping with soybeans follow ing small grain. The highest soybean yields in this area were those planted following cotton or permanent pasture. Soybeans growr following soybeans or double cropped with small grains had the lowest average yield. Varieties The soybean varieties recommended for this area were Lee and Hood. The varieties planted, yields of each variety, and the number of farmers producing each variety were as follows: Variety Lee Av. yield per acre in bushels 32.2 Number of farmers 38 Hood Ogden Jackson 32.0 28.6 23.2 15 28 1 Lee was the most popular variety and also had the highest yield. SEEDING RATE. The seeding rate ranged from 0.8 to 1.2 bushels per acre but the 0.8 bushel per acre was by far the most common. About 80 per cent of the farmers seeded their beans at 0.8 or 0.9 bushel per acre. TYPE OF SEED. The quality of the seed used by the farmers could not be determined but farmers were asked whether their seed were registered, certified, or non-certified. Only 35 per cent of the farmers reported using certified seed in this area, with 58 per cent using non-certified and 7 per cent using registered. FERTILIZATION. Thirty-eight of the 47 farmers in this area applied fertilizer to soybeans. The broadcast method was not as popular in this area as some of the others; only six producers used it. These farmers averaged 32.2 bushels per acre yield compared to 31.2 for those that applied fertilizer in the row. Those that did not use any fertilizer averaged 30.0 bushels per acre. The average amount of fertilizer applied per acre was about 15 pounds of N, 20 pounds of P, and 40 pounds of K. 'RODUCIRG SOYBEANS IN ALABAMA 31 Weed Control MECHANICAL. All producers in this area cultivated soybeans at east once, with number of cultivations ranging from one to five, ilthough there were only seven farmers that cultivated as many as our or five times. About 80 per cent of the soybeans in this area were cultivated two or three times. The average number of cul:ivations was 2.8, about the same as the southwestern and Black Belt areas. CHEMICAL. Fourteen farmers reported using preemergence hemical weed control. The average cost per acre for this material was $3.69. Five farmers also reported using postemergence Chemical control with an average cost of $1.20 per acre. HAND. One farmer reported one hour of weed pulling by hand. Insect Control There was not any insect control reported by the farmers in this area. They indicated they would have used some control measures if they had experienced much insect damage. Costs and Returns Gross Returns Gross returns from soybeans, which were affected by yield and price changes, averaged $82.59 per acre in 1966. Yield averaged 28.7 bushels per acre and price averaged $2.83 per bushel. Net Returns The average net return to land, labor, and management was $56.64 per acre. Charging land at average cash rent of $13.80 per acre leaves an average return to labor and management of $42.84 per acre. Charging $1.60 per hour for an average of 3.17 hours gives a labor cost of $5.07. Considering these charges, the average return to management is $37.77 per acre. If price was $.50 per bushel lower, this return would be reduced to $23.42 per acre. Costs Costs are determined by price and quantity of the inputs. When considering all farmers interviewed in this area, the machinery 32 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIOP 32 ALABAMA AGRICULTURALEPRMN TTO and material cost per acre of soybeans averaged $19.94 per acre The average cost per acre for materials was as follows: Materials Costs per acre $ .------------79 Seed -5.59 Fertilizer------------------------.6 0 Lime -- -- - -- - -- - -- --- -- - -- - -- -- - -- - - -1 1.41--Herbicide Insecticide -----------------.10---Inoculant -$12.49 Total for materials -------------------------The average total, fixed, and variable machinery costs per acre: including machinery hired, are shown in Table 16. TABLE 16. TOTAL, VARIABLE, AND FIXED MACHINERY COSTS PER ACRE OF SOYBEANS BY OPERATION, NORTHEASTERN ALABAMA, 1966 Operation Total cost Variable cost Fixed cost Dol. Land preparation------------------- - - - - - - -----------Planting Cultivating-------------------------------------Insecticide application Combining ------------------------------Hauling-------------------------------------1 Other Total---------------3.12 .97 1.00 5.87 Dol. 1.87 .55 .50 2.34 Dol. 1.25 .42 .50 3.53 ------- 1.93 .15 13.04 .68 .08 6.64 1.30 .07 6.40 1 Broadcasting fertilizer and applying herbicide as an operation apart from land preparation. Effects of Size of Enterprise The farms were sorted into three groups, based on acreage of soybeans, to determine the relationship of size with other factors. This sorting indicated there was no correlation between size and other factors because as the size of the soybean enterprise increased no other factors increased. The small size group had a slightly larger yield with 30.9 bushels per acre than the large size with 30.4, while the middle size group had the low yield with 25.7 bushels, Table 17. Average total material and machinery costs varied from $24.95 per acre for the large size group up to $27.37 per acre for the small size group, Table 17. The difference in returns to land, labor, and management between the small, middle, and large size group demonstrated that economies of size did not exist in the production of soybeans in this area. This was the only area of the four areas sampled that economies of size did not exist. In this area the small size farmers PRODUCING SOYBEANS IN ALABAMA 33 PRODUCING SOYBEANS IN ALABAMA FABLE 17. AVERAGE COSTS AND RETURNS FOR SOYBEAN PRODUCERS ENTERPRISE, NORTHEAST ALABAMA, 1966 BY 3 SIZE OF Acreage range Item No. of farms -Av. yield per acre in bushels Av. price per bushel (Dot.) Av. gross receipts (Dot. /acre) Variable costs (Dot.) Material Seed ----F ertilizer-- ----- ----- -Lime -H erbicide - -- - -- - -- -- - -- Insecticide----InoculantTotal material cost (Dot.)---------Variable machinery cost (Dot.)------- Less than 100 (small) 14 30.9 2.71 83.74 100-249 (middle) More than 249 (large) 18 30.4 2.82 85.73 15 25.7 2.81 72.22 - _ 3.66 4.71 1.60 1.42 .08 11.47 7.23 18.70 3.65 6.9J3 1.60 1.15 .012 13.34 5.45 18.79 .56 7.47 18.80 4.88 45.50 45.40 31.60 26.72 4.03 5.44 1.60 1.61 .08 12.76 5.69 18.45 .55 6.56 13.80 4.83 44.19 60.17 46.37 41.54 Total variable costs (Dot.)------------- Other costs (Dot.) .56 8.67 13.80 Land cost'- ------------_ 5.54 L abor cost'3 --------------------A ll .costs . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - _ 37.27 65.81 Returns to land, labor, and mgt. (Dot.)52.01 Returns to labor and mgt. (Dot.)------46.47 Returns to management (Dot.)-------cost at 6 per cent per annum for 6 months. 1Variable 2 Land cost charged at average cash rent. Interest on operating capital'------Fixed machinery costs------------------- 3Labor charged at $1.60 per hour. actually had the highest returns to land, labor, and management with $65.81 per acre than any of the other sizes. The large size group was second with $60.17 and the middle size group with $45.40. In all other areas, the large size producers received a higher price per bushel of soybeans. This was somewhat true in this area, the small size farmers received $2.71 per bushel with the middle and large size farmers receiving $2.81 and $2.82 per bushel, respectively. Another item that was different in this area was the cost of producing soybeans. The small size producers had the least average cost with $37.27 per acre compared to $45.50 for middle size and $44.19 per acre for the large size farmers. Thus with a slightly higher yield and lower cost, and approximately the same price per bushel, the smaller size farms had the highest returns to land, 34 TABLE 18. ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AVERAGE MACHINERY COSTS FOR SOYBEAN PRODUCERS BY OPERATION AND SIZE OF ENTERPRISE, NORTHEASTERN ALABAMA, 1966 Operation Less than 100 Dol. Land preparation-Planting Cultivating Insecticide application Combining Hauling ------------------Other Total 2.94 .94 1.11 8.70 1.18 14.80 Acreage range 100-249 Dol. 3.07 1.03 1.17 5.75 1.90 12.92 More than 249 Dol. 3.32 .95 1.69 3.47 2.65 .11 12.19 1 Broadcasting fertilizer and applying herbicide as an operation apart from land preparation. labor, and management of any group. Also, they had the highest return to management with $46.47 than any group, Table 17. The average machinery cost for producing soybeans indicated economies of size. The larger farms had the least cost with a total of $12.19 per acre compared to $14.80 for the small size farms. This was about the only item that followed the pattern of the other areas, Table 18. Variation Among Producer Groups Variations in yields, returns, and costs were evident among individual producers. To determine the outstanding characteristics of the operations carried on at various levels of income, the data were divided into three groups on the basis of net returns to land, labor, and management. These groups were designated as low, mid, and high producer groups. An examination of the data obtained from the study of the three producer groups, Table 19, indicated that yields, prices, and costs influenced net returns. The high income group obtained higher yields and higher prices with about the same material and machinery costs as the low and middle income group. Even though the material and machinery costs were approximately the same on a per acre basis when compared on a per unit of output basis, the high income group's variable cost was only approximately 50 per cent of the low income group's. Also, the fixed machinery cost for the high income group was about 50 per cent of the low income group. The returns to management for the low income producers were $6.01 as compared with $70.09 for the high income group. This RODUCING SOYBEANS IN ALABAMA 35 RODUC ING ABLE 19. SOYBEANS IN ALABAA 3 COSTS AND RETURNS FOR SOYBEAN PRODUCERS BY RETURNS TO LAND, LABOR, AND MANAGEMENT, NORTHEAST ALABAMA, 1966 To. Lv. .v. Item All producers Producer groups Low Mid High 14 17 4 47 of farms------- ---------------------------------- 162 acreage of soybeans/farm------------yield per acre in bushels---------------------------- 28.7 121 20.1 194 28.5 16 183 37.4 'er acre 52.07 80.59 115.12 82.59 Gross returns (Dot.) 6.99 6.33 Fixed machinery cost (Dot.)------------6----------6.97 7.59 19.02 18.40 18.84 17.33 Total variable cost (Dot.) _--_------------------------Interest on operating capital' (Dot.)------------.58 .60 .55 .60 13.80 13.80 13.80 Land cost' (Dot.) --------------------------------4.70 5.28 5.07 5.23 Labor cost' (D ot.). --------------------------------------.13.80 ------------------------------- All costs (Dot.)----------------------------------Returns to land, labor, and mgt. (Dot.) Returns to labor and mgt. (Dot.) Returns to management (Dot.)--------------------- ----------------------25.04 11.24 44.82 56.64 42.84 37.77 46.06 43.37 41.94 45.03 89.17 75.37 55.72 6.01 37.22 70.09 'er bushel Gross returns (price) (Dot.). Fixed machinery cost (Dal.)------------------------Total variable cost (Dot.) Interest on operating capital' (Dot.) Land cost' (Dol.) -------------------------------------Labor cost' (Dot.)----------------------All costs (Dot.)----------------------------------------------. Returns to land, labor, and mgt. (Dot.) Returns to labor and mgt. (Dot.) Returns to management (Dot.) -------------------- 2.83 3.08 2.83 2.59 ------------------------ .61 .51 .69 .94 ----------------------------- .27 .38 .25 .17 .02 -----------.48 .51 .69 .03 .02 .02 .19 1.67 1.86 1.67 1.16 .26 2.29 1.25 .16 1.52 1.96 1.79 .37 .14 1.20 2.38 2.24 -------------------.99 .30 1.30 1.87 1 Variable cost charged at 6 per cent per annum for 6 months. 'Land charged at average cash rent. 'Labor 'Producer charged at $1.60 per hour. groups are based on returns to land, labor, and management. was the widest spread of any of the areas studied. Returns to management on a per bushel basis ranged from $.30 for the low income group to $1.87 for the high group. When considering all costs on a per acre basis, the average for all farms was $44.82 with a range from $46.06 for the low income to a low of $43.37 for the middle income group. There was much more variation in cost per bushel than in cost per acre because of the large variations in yield between income groups. The costs per bushel ranged from $2.29 for the low income down to $1.20 per bushel for the high income group. There was little difference in the total machinery and material cost for the low,, mid, and high income groups, Table 20. But there was some difference in the total material cost and total ma- 36 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIOI 36 TABLE 20. AL~ABAA AGRICULTURALEPRMN TTO PRODUCED AVERAGE MATERIAL AND MACHINERY COSTS FOR SOYBEAN BY RETURNS, NORTHEASTERN ALABAMA, 1966 Item Item Low 14 121 20.1 Producer group Mid 17 194 2 High 16 183 87.4 N o. of farms ---------------------------------------Av. acreage per farm -------------------------------Av. yield per acre in bushels 28.5 ------------------- Costs per acre Material cost (Dot.) Seed ---------------------------------------Fertilizer Lime ---------------------------------------Herbicide ---------------------------------------Inse cticid e - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --Inoculant-----------------------------Total for materials (Dol.) -_-------------------------- 13.48 11.12 --------------------3.14 3.63 6.03 1.60 1.09 ---.08 12.54 3.63 5.15 4.12 5.14 1.60 .66 .08 1.60 2.49 .13 Macbinery cost (Dol.) 3.39 2.79 Land preparation ---------------------------1.01 .98 P lanting ---------------------------------------1.44 1.05 Cultivating .--------------------------------------Insecticide application ---- -5.05 7.97 C ombining ---------------------------------------2.19 1.11 H auling ---------------------------------------.12 .10 Other'- ---- -- -- -- - ------ -- -- --- -- -- ---- Total machinery costs (Dol.)---14.00 ---------13.20 .93 .50 4.58 2.49 .23 11.87 Total machinery and material costs 25.35 24.32 26.43 (D ol.) ---------------------------------------1 Cost of broadcasting fertilizer and applying herbicide as an operation separati from land preparation. 2 Groups based on returns to land, labor, and management. chinery cost for each of these groups. The low income producers tended to have the highest machinery cost and lowest material cost. SUMMARY As the acreage of soybeans grown in Alabama has increased in recent years, there has been an increased demand for more inf ormation on cost and returns for producing soybeans. This study was directed toward providing this information. The objectives of this study were to determine the costs and returns for producing soybeans in four producing areas and to determine the effect of size of enterprise on costs and returns. The data in this study were collected by personal interviews from farmers of four farming areas of Alabama. The four area study included about two-thirds of the total soybean acreage of the State in 1966. :ODUCING SOYBEANS IN ALABAMA 37 About 50 per cent of the farmers interviewed were planning to Lcrease soybean acreage. The two major areas that were planing to expand production were the southeastern and the Black elt. The most common reason given for planning to expand was ,at soybeans are more profitable than other crops. Other reasons iven were that soybeans fit in well with a double cropping sysem, they have a low labor and capital requirement, and there is o allotment on soybean acreage. The 231 farmers sampled were primarily row crop farmers proucing in addition to soybeans, corn, cotton, small grains, peanuts, otatoes, and truck crops. Corn was the most popular crop fol)wed by small grains and cotton. Acreage of soybeans per farm was approximately 184 acres, the 'lack Belt area averaged 320 acres; the northeastern, 162 acres; he southwestern, 189 acres; and the southeastern approximately ;00 acres. The southwestern had the highest yields, followed ,y northeastern, Black Belt, and southeastern. There was an increased labor efficiency as the size of farm inreased. The average hours of labor per acre varied from 4.77 tours for the small farms in the southwestern to a low of 2.86 for he large Black Belt and southeastern farms. The average num>er of hours of labor required per acre decreased in every area as he size of farm increased. The average hours of labor for all arms was 3.2. Corn and cotton were the major crops that were reduced to xpand soybean production. The major exception to this was the 3lack Belt area where most of the increased soybean acreage re;ulted from permanent pastures converted into soybean produc-ion. The number of insecticide applications was highly correlated with yield. In three of the four areas as number of insecticide applications increased from none to three, yields increased an average of 2 bushels per acre for each additional insecticide application. Another important factor affecting yield was size of soybean enterprise. Yields increased an average of about one bushel per acre for each 100 acres increase in size of soybean operation in two areas, the southeastern and the southwestern. Another factor that affected net returns was the larger size producers received from 10 to 20 cents per bushel higher price. This was true in all areas of production. 38 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIC The data for each area were divided into three groups based c returns to land, labor, and management. Also there were tx other returns computed, returns to labor and management an returns to management. When comparing all areas, the hig group of the southwestern and the northeastern areas had highest average production with approximately 37 bushels p( acre. The 16 high producers in the northeastern area had th highest return to management (return above all cost) with a average of $70.09 per acre. The high producers in the southeas ern and the Black Belt areas were about the same in return t management with approximately $52. When comparing the averages for the areas, the southwester had the highest yield with 31.2 bushels per acre, Table 21. Th Black Belt had the largest acreages of soybeans with an averag of 320 acres per farm. There was little difference in the cost of production betweei areas. The southwestern had the highest cost of $47.00 per acre and the Black Belt had the lowest cost of $38.85 per acre. Whei comparing returns to land, labor, and management, the south western with the high yield and the high cost, had the highes returns with $60.41, followed by the northeastern with $56.64 When all costs were subtracted and returns to management com puted, the southwestern still had the highest with an average o$42.08 per acre with the southeastern, a low of $27.06 per acre tli C 0 0 TABLE 21. COST AND RETURNS RETURNS TO LAND, LABOR, FOR SOYBEAN PRODUCERS BY AREA AND AND MANAGEMENT IN ALABAMA, 1966 BY m ItemAArea No. of farms .--------------------------------------Av. acreage soybeans/farm Av. yield per acre in bushels Per acre gross returns (Dot.).---------------------------------------Fixed machinery cost Total variable cost Interest on operating producers 232 183.3 28.8 81.21 Southeastern 49 100 25.8 72.18 of State Southwestern Black Belt 103 33 Northeastern 47 162 28.7 Z ----------------------------------------189 320 89.08 6.35 21.67 .65 ---------------------------------------31.2 25.7 68.10 6.53 19.25 .58 6.56 21.04 .61 6.65 23.50 .70 82.59 6.97 18.40 .58 (Dot.)--- ------------------(Dot.) ------------------------- Land cost (average rental rate) (Dot.) ---------Labor cost ($1.60 per hour) (Dot.)------------All costs (Dot.)------------------------------Returns to land, opr. labor, and mgt. (Dot.).-----Returns to labor and mgt. (Dot.)---------------Returns to management (Dot.).----------------- capital --------------------- 11.28 5.47 45.00 52.95 41.68 36.21 9.26 5.01 45.12 41.33 32.07 27.06 12.25 6.08 47.00 60.41 .48.16 42.08 7.64 4.85 38.85 41.74 34.10 29.25 13.80 5.07 44.82 56.64 42.84 37.77 ,o 40 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIC APPENDIX APPENDIX TABLE 1. ESTIMATED LIFE OF FARM MACHINERY Machine Years until obsolete Yr. Wear-out hours life Hr. 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 1,500 2,500 2,000 1,200 1,200 1,200 2,000 2,000 2,000 Hr. per year fo wear-out life tc equal obsolesero life Hr. 208 167 167 167 100 125 100 80 60 80 200 200 167 Tillage Cultivator---- - - -Disk harrow -- - - Moldboard plow Disk plow--- -- - - Rotary hoe-- - - - - - Spike tooth harrow Spring tooth harrow Planting Fertilizer distributors------drill----------- ----- 12 15 15 15 15 20 20 15 20 15 10 10 _ G rain crop planter.---------Row Harvesting Combine (pull type) Combine Rotary ------------- (sell-propelled) Miscellaneous cutter-------- 12 15 Tractors Wheel type tractor--------- 12,000 800 Source: American Society of Agricultural Engineers. St. Joseph, Michiga ASAE Data, AS D230, Farm Machinery Cost and Use. tODUCING SOYBEANS IN ALABAMA 41 PPDUCING SOYBEANS IN ALABAMA Machinery Size -2-row Operating cost Total Variable Fixed Ui Ui1 ,, Dol. illage Cultivator-- - - - - Cultivator- - - - - - Cultivator--- --Field cultivator Disk harrow (tandem) Offset harrowMoldboard plow Cultipacker----lanting Planter -- - - -- - - -- - Planter -- - - -- - - -- - Planter----------------[arvesting Combine (tractor drawn) Combine (self-propelled without header) ------H eader .--------------H eader-------------- Dol. .33 .28 .25 .12 .16 .64 .07 .57 1.09 1.56 1.21 2.38 .26 .30 .30 .14 Dol. .38 .31 .29 .09 -4-row -6-row all all air all all 2-row - 4-row - 6-row - all all 9-10 ft. _11-12 ft. - 13-14 ft. -all Max, drawbar HP 2 20-30 31-40 41-50 .71 .59 .54 .15 .23 .53 .95 .44 1.15 2.18 3.12 3.18 6.80 1.05 1.15 1.17 .33 .06, acre acre acre acre .13 .37 .31 .37 .58 1.09 1.56 1.97 4.42 .79 .85 .87 .19 acre acre acre acre hour hour hour hour hour hour hour hour acre --- Header -------------- -'iscellaneous Rotary cutter_----------- ~ractor W heel-type------------.94 1.24 1.57 1.87 51-60 .60 .79 1.00 1.20 .34 .45 .57 .67 hour hour hour hour 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 100± 2.14 2.37 2.58 2.76 3.00 1.37 1.51 1.65 1.77 1.92 .77 .86 .93 .99 1.08 hour hour hour hour hour 'When rate of accomplishment was obtained from the farmer, cost was calcuated on a per hour basis, otherwise cost was calculated on a per acre basis using he average rate of accomplishment. Horsepower classification based on Nebraska Tractor Test. Source: Estimating Farm Machinery Cost. Agricultural Extension Service, Virinia Polytechnic Institute, Bulletin 290, June 1965, pp. 10-11. APPENDIX TABLE 3. NUMBER OF FARMS, ACREAGE, AND YIELD BY PRODUCING FARMS IN ALABAMA, 1966 CROPS GROWN ON SOYBEAN Area of State Southeastern Soybeans No. of farms----------------------------------Total acres_ ................. Av. acres per farm Av. yield per acre (bu.) Corn No. of farms_ Total acres Av. acres per farm Av. yield per acre (bu.) Cotton No. of farms Total acres --------....... Av. acres per farm Av. yield per acre (lb. It.) Small grain (harvested) No. of farm s----------------------- ----Total acres Av. acres per farmAv. yield per acre (bu.) 49 4,886 99.7 25.8 44 7,361 167.3 34.5 35 1,590 45.4 23 3,481 151.3 27 5 1,149 229.8 Southwestern 103 19,412 188.7 31.2 81 5,276 65.1 42.8 23 980 42.6 740 91 7,155 78.6 23.1 32 2,982 93.2 Black Belt 33 10,550 319.7 25.7 21 3,501 166.7 38.7 19 3,203 168.6 590 23 5,635 245.0 24.3 5 565 113.0 Northeastern 47 7,614 62 29.7 44 4,868 111 54.7 40 4,351 109 680 13 585 45m 40.5 5 647 129 r c -' - - - -265 C x M Grazing and cover crops* No. of farms Total acres----------------------------Av. acres per farm-...................... Av. yield per acre 2 -4 -I -I 0 APPENDIX TABLE 8. Continued C Area of State Crop Southeastern 3 Southwestern 1 Black Belt 3 297 113.0 Northeastern 3 89 30 0 0 . Grain sorghum 75 177 Total acres------------------------75.0 59.0 Av. acres per farm .---------------------------------------Av. yield per acre--------------------------Peanuts 2 41 No. of farms------------------59 3,349 Total acres -------------------------29.5 81.7 Av. acres per farm ---------------------------------------1,440 1,700 Av. yield per acre (lb.)-----------------------Potatoes No. of farms----------------------------------Total acres Av. acres per farm------------Av. yield per acre2 85 42.5 34 3,005 88.4 No. of farms----------------------------------- z H zh ----------------------------- Truck crops No. of farm s----------------------- ----Total acres----- ------------------- ----Av. acres per farm ----------------------Av. yield per acre------------------------Other N oof farm s----------------------- ----Total acres----------------------------Av. acres per farm 3 91 30.3 ---- 18 1,086 60.3 ---------------------------------- 5 41 8.2 ------ 5 375 75.0 1 200 200.0 17 1,713 101 Av. yield per acre--------------- SIncludes small grain not harvested. W APPENDIX TABLE 4. REASONS NUMBER OF FARMERS FOR INCREASE PLANNING TO INCREASE OF STATE, ALABAMA, BY AREA SOYBEAN ACREAGE, 1966 I- Reasons M ore profitable .------------Ability to double crop---------------------Lower labor and capital requirements---. . N o allotm ent ----------------------- -----Better utilization of machinerySpreads out labor requirement ........ Other--------------- --T otal ---------. . ---------------.. .. .3 Southeastern Area of State Southwestern Black Belt 6 5 3 8 3 0 2 27 13 2 6 0 5 2 0 28 Northeastern 6 2 2 2 1 0 8 21 ------ -------- 14 8 5 5 4 1 0 87 - C a Ia x m m z -I -I -! SELECTED SOYBEAN PRODUCING FARMS BY AREAS OF ALABAMA, 1966 0 c Area of State P'revious crop Southeastern Southwestern Black Belt 22.9 2.5 6/24 Northeastern 26.8 14.7 6/25 Soybeans Av. yield soybeans (bu.)---------------------------Av. number years growing soybeans ---------------Av. planting date --- ---------Av. fertilization (lb.) N--------------------------------P------------------------------------K --- ---- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- 12 5.8 ---------------5/24 5/28 100 26 54 28.2 27.9 0 m 15-46 21 41 z z- 13 25 15 28 33.2 11.0 5/25 111 Corn 29.0 29.9 24.9 Av. yield soybeans (bu.) ----------------------------------17 2.0 1.7 Av. number years growing soybeans.---------------. 6/7 5/20 5/27 Av. planting date ---------------------------------------Av. fertilization (lb.) 100 102 74 N------------------------ - ----------22 29 24 P-----------------------------42 55 47 K-- - - -- - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - --- - Cotton 26.6 28.9 24.0 Av. yield soybeans (bu.) ----------------------------------1.3 10 1.3 Av. number years growing soybeans-------Av. planting date r 26 50 89.8 12.1 5/14 Av. fertilization Small ------ . N ---- ---- ------- ----- - ---- --P------------K - - --1-- - -- -- - -- - - -- - - -- -- - - - -- - - -- - -----------------------(lb.) 5/24 5/11 5/24 Av. yield soybeans (bn.)-----------------Av. number years growing soybeans.-------Av. planting date grain 77 27 54 26.6 6.3 77 59 26 50 31.1 19 63 90 28 52 . 24.7 3.5 6/2 81 88 27 56 26.6 12.3 86 Av. fertilization N ---- - P--- --------- - - ------------ - - ----K ---------- - ---------- - - -- --- ----- (lb.) - - - - - -- -- ---------------- ----------------------- 6/9 6/12 6/10 25 50 33 64 25 47 17 32 APPENDIX TABLE 5. Continued Area of State Previous crop Southeastern 27.0 1.0 5/23 0 31 58 Southwestern 32.8 20 6/8 47 31 58 Black Belt Northeastern Grazing crops Av. yield soybeans (bu.) ----------------------------------Av. number years growing soybeans --------------Av. planting date _------------------Av. fertilization (lb.) N - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - .6 P------------------------------------K----------------- ----------------- 0 Potatoes' Av. yield soybeans (bu.) ----------------------------------Av. number years growing soybeans----------------Av. planting date _--------------------------------------Av. fertilization (lb.) N --- -- -- -- --- -- -- -- --- -- -- -- --- -- -- -- - -K------------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Permanent pasture Av. yield soybeans (bu.) Av. number years growing soybeans .-------------- 12.0 16.0 6/24 165 33.6 22 6/14 F- P--- - -- - - - --- - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - 1 59 12 1 270 117 230 42.5 r ----------------------------------33.6 27.4 19 5/29 2.2 6/3 Av. planting date------------------------ Idle land Av. fertilization (lb.) N- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - K -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Av. yield soybeans (bu.)-----------------Av. number years growing soybeans.-------Av. planting date-----------------------Av. fertilization 6/12 4.5 c m 1 14 38 71 21.5 3.0 6/12 - 25 16 31 20.4 5/20 - -- 12 5 22 42 35.0 9.0 6/10 - m M z -I P. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- (lb.) K-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- - v c 0 APPENDIX TABLE 6. AVERAGE YIELD, SELECTED FACTORS AFFECTING YIELD, FARMERS BY PLANTING DATE, AREAS OF ALABAMA, 1966 AND NUMBER OF z Af Planting date Areas of State 0 Southeastern Southwestern Black Belt Northeastern m April 15-30 Av. yield (bu. /acre) .--------------------------------------30.7 Av. seeding rate (hu./acre) -----------------------------.9 Av. number insecticide applications .--------------1.1 Av. row w idth (inches)-------------------------------34 Av. numher of years growing soyheans 14.3 No. of farmers --------------- ------------------ -----72 May 1-15 Av. yield (bu./acre) .--------------------------------------21.3 30.3 Av. seeding rate (bu./acre) ------------------------------1.2 1.1 Av. numher insecticide applications--------.1 1.3 Av. row width (inches) .-.----------------34 34 Av. number of years growing soyheans---- -2.1 15.4 No. of farm ers.-------------------- -----7 43 May 16-31 Av. yield (bu. /acre) .--------------------29.1 32.7 Av. seeding rate (bu./acre) _--------------.9 1.0 z 27.5 H zI 1.0 ----------- _------ 36 2.5 20.8 .8 33.8 .8 .20 36 1.9 10 27.6 .9 1.25 -39 12.9 26 26.8 .9 -- --------Av. row width (inches)-------------------Av. number insecticide applications .9 1.5 Av. number of years growing soyheans-----No. of farm ers -------------------------- 33 3.5 13 34 17.4 47 36 3.2 12 38 14.8 19 APPENDIX TABLE 6. Continued Areas of State Flanting date Southeastern 24.3 1.1 1.0 34 5.5 34 26.2 1.0 .6 34 7.2 14 18.40 1.2 1.2 26 4.40 5 Southwestern 31.7 1.1 1.5 34 20.0 89 30.9 1.1 1.5 35 19.5 28 28.75 1.11 2.15 36 19.10 20 Black Belt 23.8 .8 .66 36 2.4 18 24.8 1.0 0 34 3.5 4 15.33 1.0 .67 34 4.33 3 Northeastern 30.6 .8 40D 12.5 25 28.1 .9 38 11.3 16M 25.0n .9 40 2.0 1 m June 1-15 Av. yield (bu./acre) Av. seeding rate (bu./acre) Av. number insecticide applications ................ Av. row width (inches) Av. number of years growing soybeans ........... No. of farmers June 16-30 Av. yield (bu./acre) Av. seeding rate (bu./acre) Av. number insecticide applications Av. row width (inches) Av. number of years growing soybeans No. of farmers July 1-August 15r Av. yield (bu./acre) Av. seeding rate (bu./acre) Av. number insecticide applications .-..... Av. row width (inches) Av. number of years growing soybeans...... No. of farmers c X mm - 2 oI -I EDUCING SOYBEANS IN ALABAMA kPPENDLX TABLE 7. SOYBEANS, 49 BY SIZE OF FARM AND AREA OF ALABAMA, AVERAGE LABOR HOURS PER ACRE USED IN PRODUCING 1966 hours of labor 100 or more 2.85 250 or more 2.93 300 or more 2.86 200 ormore 3.02 Size ----- Area ------ ~~--------- ------ ~----of farm and ~--- of State itheastern Acres of soybeans Total labor (hr.) ithwestem Acres of soybeans Total labor (hr.)___ ick Belt Acres of Less than 35 3.65 Less than 100 4.77 Less than 79 2.99 Less than 100 3.46 35-99 2.91 100-249 3.58 80-299 3.22 100-199 3.05 soybeans- Total labor (br.)__. rtheastern Acres of soybeans. Total - labor (hr.)___ AGRICULTUkAL EXPERIMENT STATION SYSTEM OF ALABAMA'S LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITY With an agricultural research unit in evervyh, major soil area, Auburn University serves the needs of field crop, livestock, forestry, and horticultural producers in each region in Alao bama. Every citizen of the State has a stake in this research program, since any advantage from new and more economical ways of producing anid handling farm products directix benefits the consuming J ' public. Research Unit Identification 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Tennessee Valley Substation, Belie Mina. Sand Mountain Substation, Crossvilie. North Alabama Horticulture Substation, Cullman. Upper Coastal Plain Substation, Winfield. Forestry Unit, Fayette County. Thorsby Foundation Seed Stocks Farm, Thorsby. Chilton Area Horticulture Substation, Clanton. Forestry Unit, Coosa County. Piedmont Substation, Camp Hill. Plant Breeding Unit, Talassee. Forestry Unit, Autouga County. Prattville Experiment Field, Prattville. Block Belt Substation, Marion Junction. Tuskegee Experiment Field, Tuskegee. Lower Coastai Plain Substation, Camden. Forestry Unit, Barbour County. Monroeville Experiment Field, Monroeville. Wiregrass Substation, Headland. Brewton Experiment Field, Brewton Ornamental Horticulture Field Station, Spring Hill. Gulf Coast Substation, Fairhope.