Optimal usage of water taia lubbock regional meeting
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 40

Optimal Usage of Water TAIA Lubbock Regional Meeting PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 54 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Optimal Usage of Water TAIA Lubbock Regional Meeting. Jay Yates Extension Program Specialist III Risk Management Lubbock, TX. Texas Southern High Plains Irrigation Situation. Declining capacity Increased efficiency Increasing energy costs Varieties with higher potential yields.

Download Presentation

Optimal Usage of Water TAIA Lubbock Regional Meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Optimal usage of water taia lubbock regional meeting

Optimal Usage of WaterTAIA Lubbock Regional Meeting

Jay Yates

Extension Program Specialist III

Risk Management

Lubbock, TX


Texas southern high plains irrigation situation

Texas Southern High Plains Irrigation Situation

  • Declining capacity

  • Increased efficiency

  • Increasing energy costs

  • Varieties with higher potential yields


Farm assistance analysis

FARM Assistance Analysis

  • Looked at the following cotton alternatives:

    • Fully irrigate 120 acre pivots with 300 gpm each

    • Irrigate 1/2 pivots, treat the rest as dryland

    • Irrigate 2/3 pivots, treat the rest as dryland

    • Drill new wells to irrigate entire pivots on owned land with 600 GPM

      • Drilling 4 new wells for the 4 pivots on owned land at a cost of $40,000 each

      • Water ½ pivots on rented ground

        * None of the alternatives included DCP Program Direct Payments


Updated results change in real net worth

Updated Results% Change in Real Net Worth


Updated results average net farm profit

Updated ResultsAverage Net Farm Profit


Updated results average probability of a cash shortfall

Updated ResultsAverage Probability of a Cash Shortfall


Updated results ending cash reserves

Updated ResultsEnding Cash Reserves


Optimal usage of water taia lubbock regional meeting

Projected Variability in Net Farm Income


Optimal usage of water taia lubbock regional meeting

“Whiskey is for drinkin’, water is

for fightin’ over” Mark Twain


Observations from 2011

Observations From 2011

  • TTU Lubbock Mesonet Site

    • 45.75” Cumulative Reference ET from 4/15 – 9/15

    • 2.36” Rainfall during the same period

    • 98 days of 95 degrees or more

    • 58 days of 100 degrees or more

      • Official Lubbock record of 48 breaks old record from 1934 of 29

  • 3 bale cotton in 2011 took from 21-35 ac/in with 4-5 gpm per acre capacity

  • Well irrigated pivots and drip had significantly higher net returns


Petersburg texas

Petersburg, Texas

Dryland planted May 4 – Picture taken August 25, 2011


Shallowater texas

Shallowater, Texas

Pre-watered Only Planted May 4 – Picture taken August 25, 2011


North of petersburg texas yield 9 bpa

North of Petersburg, Texas Yield .9 BPA

Sub-Surface Drip, 1.5 GPM per acre – Picture taken August 25, 2011


Petersburg texas yield 1 5 bpa

Petersburg, Texas Yield 1.5 BPA

Sub-Surface Drip, 2.5 GPM per acre – Picture taken August 25, 2011


Lubbock texas yield 3 3 bpa

Lubbock, Texas Yield 3.3 BPA

Sub-Surface Drip, 4.1 GPM per acre – Picture taken August 25, 2011


Sandhill texas yield 3 5 bpa

Sandhill, Texas Yield 3.5 BPA

Sub-Surface Drip, 4.5 GPM per acre – Picture taken August 25, 2011


South of shallowater texas yield 3 95 bpa

South of Shallowater, Texas Yield 3.95 BPA

Sub-Surface Drip, 6 GPM per acre – Picture taken August 25, 2011


Not much better in 2012

Not Much Better in 2012

  • TTU Lubbock Mesonet Site

    • 41.13” Cumulative Reference ET from 4/15 – 9/15

    • 6.24” Rainfall during the same period

    • 69 days of 95 degrees or more

    • 25 days of 100 degrees or more

      • Official Lubbock record prior to 2011 was 29 from 1934

      • Official Lubbock record of 24 tied for 5th most with 1924

  • 3 bale cotton in 2012 took only slightly less irrigation than 2011

  • Well irrigated pivots and drip had significantly higher net returns


Not as hot and dry in 2013 but still above average

Not as Hot and Dryin 2013But still above average

  • TTU Lubbock/Reese Mesonet Site

    • 42.09” Cumulative Reference ET from 4/15 – 9/3

      • Would expect another 2.5” over next 2 weeks based on forecasts, making 2013 as high of ET as 2011

    • 7.82” Rainfall during the same period

      • Normal rainfall is 11.24” for this period

      • 33 of top 36 driest periods on record for Lubbock come between 9/15 and 4/15. (That’s why winter wheat is not as successful here)

    • 48 days of 95 degrees or more

    • 13 days of 100 degrees or more

      • Still warmer than average (~10 days/year), but closer to average temperature compared to the past 2 years.


Comparative profit analysis 2011

Comparative Profit Analysis 2011

  • Interviewed area farmers

  • Collected data from AgriLife Research & Extension Projects


The study group

The Study Group

  • 31 Cotton Farm Sites

    • 17 Sub-Surface Drip (all on 80” centers)

    • 13 Center Pivots

      • 2 MESA

      • 1 LESA

      • 10 LEPA

    • 1 Furrow

    • GPM/Acre ranging from 1.5 to 6.0


2011 cotton yields vs water applied

2011 Cotton Yields vs. Water Applied

Cotton Yield

lbs/acre

Inches of Water

Applied per Acre


2011 returns above direct costs at 0 90 lb vs water applied at 9 in

2011 Returns Above Direct Costs at $0.90/lb vs. Water Applied at $9/in

Returns Above

Direct Costs

> 4 gpm/ac

Inches of Water

Applied per Acre


2011 cotton net profit at 0 90 lb vs water applied at 9 in

2011 Cotton Net Profit at $0.90/lb vs. Water Applied at $9/in

Returns Above

Direct Costs

> 4 gpm/ac

Inches of Water

Applied per Acre


2011 returns above direct costs at 0 52 lb vs water applied at 9 in

2011 Returns Above Direct Costs at $0.52/lb vs. Water Applied at $9/in

Returns Above

Direct Costs

Inches of Water

Applied per Acre


2011 cotton net profit at 0 52 lb vs water applied at 9 in

2011 Cotton Net Profit at $0.52/lb vs. Water Applied at $9/in

Returns Above

Direct Costs

Inches of Water

Applied per Acre


2 011 returns above direct costs at 0 90 lb vs water applied at 15 in

2011 Returns Above Direct Costs at $0.90/lb vs. Water Applied at $15/in

Returns Above

Direct Costs

Inches of Water

Applied per Acre


2011 cotton net profit at 0 90 lb vs water applied at 15 in

2011 Cotton Net Profit at $0.90/lb vs. Water Applied at $15/in

Returns Above

Direct Costs

Inches of Water

Applied per Acre


What does it take to apply 20 25 inches of irrigation

What Does It Take To Apply 20-25 Inches of Irrigation?

* Assumes 125 acre pivot and irrigating season from April 15 to September 15


Conclusions

Conclusions

  • In 2011 with virtually no sub-soil moisture or rainfall during the growing season, it took at least 4 gpm/acre to make a profitable cotton crop.

  • Long term analysis shows that systems with the ability to deliver less than 3 gpm/acre would be more profitable cutting irrigated acreage back to that level.

  • Irrigation profitability is more sensitive to lower cotton prices than higher energy prices.

  • Expected price level for 2013 would indicate that profitable irrigated yields are still attainable.


Factors affecting planting decisions

Factors Affecting Planting Decisions

  • Personal Preference

  • Risk Avoidance

  • Potential Profitability

  • Long Term Sustainability


Comparative farm scenarios 2013

Comparative Farm Scenarios 2013

  • Irrigated Acres – 125

  • Total Cropland Acres – 160

  • Irrigation Capacity – 350 GPM

  • Number Days to Irrigate – 120

  • Acre-inches per Irrigated Acre - 18


Comparative farm scenarios 20131

Comparative Farm Scenarios 2013

  • Scenario 1

    • Cotton – Irrigated (950 lb APH, 65%) – 125 ac.

    • Cotton – Dryland (250 lb APH, 65%) – 35 ac.

    • Percent Irrigation Capacity Used – 67%

    • Return Over Direct Expenses - $61,852

    • Insurance Coverage Ratio – 109%


Comparative farm scenarios 20132

Comparative Farm Scenarios 2013

  • Scenario 2

    • Corn – Irrigated (185 bu APH, 65%) – 62.5 ac.

    • Sorghum – Irrigated (75 bu APH, 65%) – 62.5 ac.

    • Sorghum – Dryland (30 buAPH, 65%) – 35 ac.

    • Percent Irrigation Capacity Used – 93%

    • Return Over Direct Expenses - $26,015

    • Insurance Coverage Ratio – 89%


Comparative farm scenarios 20133

Comparative Farm Scenarios 2013

  • Scenario 3

    • Sesame – Irrigated (675 lb APH, 65%) – 125 ac.

    • Sesame – Dryland (450 lb APH, 65%) – 35 ac.

    • Percent Irrigation Capacity Used – 62%

    • Return Over Direct Expenses - $79,040

    • Insurance Coverage Ratio – 80%


Comparative farm scenarios 20134

Comparative Farm Scenarios 2013

  • Scenario 4

    • Corn – Irrigated (185 bu APH, 65%) – 80 ac.

    • Sunflowers – Dryland (556 lb APH, 65%) – 80 ac.

    • Percent Irrigation Capacity Used – 86%

    • Return Over Direct Expenses - $32,036

    • Insurance Coverage Ratio – 86%


Comparative farm scenarios 20135

Comparative Farm Scenarios 2013

  • Scenario 5

    • Corn – Irrigated (185 bu APH, 65%) – 80 ac.

    • Cotton – Dryland (250 lb APH, 65%) – 80 ac.

    • Percent Irrigation Capacity Used – 86%

    • Return Over Direct Expenses - $26,910

    • Insurance Coverage Ratio – 85%


Comparative farm scenarios 20136

Comparative Farm Scenarios 2013

  • Scenario 6

    • Corn – Irrigated (185 bu APH, 65%) – 80 ac.

    • Sesame – Dryland (450 lb APH, 65%) – 80 ac.

    • Percent Irrigation Capacity Used – 86%

    • Return Over Direct Expenses - $34,900

    • Insurance Coverage Ratio – 91%


Comparative farm scenarios 20137

Comparative Farm Scenarios 2013

Insurance

Coverage Ratio

Irrigation Capacity Usage


Optimal usage of water taia lubbock regional meeting

Jay Yates

Extension Program Specialist III

Risk Management

FARM Assistance Analyst

  • Contact Information:

  • Texas A&M AgriLife Research

  • and Extension Center

  • 1102 East FM 1294

  • Lubbock, TX 79403

  • (806) 746-6101

  • [email protected]

  • http://lubbock.tamu.edu

  • http://agrilife.org/southplainsprofit

  • http://agrilife.org/southplainscotton

  • https://www.facebook.com/FARMAssistance

South Plains Cotton Update every Thursday at 1:00 – 2:30 p.m. during

West Texas Ag Life on


  • Login