Valuing Permanent Pasture in New Mexico

Transcription

1 Valuing Permanent in New Mexico James D. Libbin, Jerry M. Hawkes and Brandy Byerly The predominant type of agriculture in several counties in New Mexico is a combination of crop and livestock enterprises.this combination typically requires a year-long forage supply that usually involves an integrated grazing system of irrigated pasture and may also include native rangeland or forest.this study developed representative cost and return estimates for livestock operators in 11 counties who use an integrated grazing rotation system that includes improved permanent pasture. rental rates are typically priced too low in comparison to forage availability. To determine a fair transfer price for forage, pasture prices were changed to equate the rate of return on investment for pasture to that of livestock. A 12-year history of cattle and alfalfa prices was used to evaluate the sensitivity of transfer prices for forage to changing feed and cattle prices. Since 1984, when New Mexico State University (NMSU) began producing farm cost and return estimates on a consistent annual basis, permanent pasture cost and return estimates have routinely yielded negative returns (Hawkes and Libbin). After tracking these estimates through time, it seems clear that irrigated pasture has been undervalued in a typical integrated grazing rotation (see Figure 1 for the 10-year results for a typical area). Permanent pasture is usually integrated into a rotational system that often includes crops as well as livestock.most producers do not view the two enterprises as separate entities, rather permanent pasture is simply viewed as an input into the livestock operation. If pasture were represented as a distinct enterprise separate from livestock that could be rented to someone else, the landowner might make a different economic decision. Typically, this opportunity cost approach is not applied to a normally nonmarket resource like pasture. It is, however, routinely applied to grain produced on the farm and fed to livestock and should also be used when analyzing pasture.the essence of the argument is that pasture is often undervalued because active markets for pasture rentals are not common. If undervalued, the pasture enterprise subsidizes the grazing livestock. Consequently, live- Figure 2. Counties with NMSU Permanent Cost and Return Estimates. Figure 1. Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, Permanent Cost and Returns, Dollars Dollars Permanent Gross Returns Total Costs R.L.R. Year James D. Libbin Jim and Jerry are affiliated with the Department of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business, Agricultural Experiment Station, College of Agriculture and Home Economics, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico. Brandy works with Colonial Bank in Reno, Nevada Journal of the ASFMRA

2 stock returns are higher than they should be, and pasture returns are lower than they should be.this may seem to be just a problem of definition, especially if only whole farm returns are considered important. undervaluation /cattle overvaluation can lead to poor economic decisions with respect to further improvement of pasture or even the retention of cattle ownership. Most cow-calf herds in New Mexico are grazed on native rangeland, but a number of operations also include farming enterprises.these operations require a year-long forage supply, which usually involves a grazing system of irrigated pasture and grazing of crop aftermath, such as alfalfa stubble.they may also involve native range (or forest) grasses. In a typical grazing system, timing is a major factor. During the summer season, native rangeland or forest is often the main forage source. Irrigated pasture and crop aftermath usually are grazed in the fall and spring. In the winter months, however, few producers have enough forage available for grazing; supplemental hay, liquid feed or protein block is fed to help maintain the herd. Objectives The livestock producer s main goal is to profitably produce marketable livestock on a limited forage base.to do this, an integrated grazing system that recognizes seasonal forage availability and timing and minimizes supplemental feeding must be used. Lowering supplemental feed costs and associated labor requirements is especially critical for livestock production systems that have a thin profit margin, such as cow-calf enterprises. The optimal combination of irrigated pasture and native rangeland will maximize profit for the whole operation while maintaining a balance between forage availability and forage requirements. The specific objective of this report is to reveal the implicit value of permanent, improved pasture for integrated cow-calf operators that graze cattle on Table 1. Farm Characteristics and Overhead Costs Eastern Grant/ Northern DeBaca Slope Catron Lincoln Mtns. Socorro Crop Acreage establishment 3 a 7 a 4 a 2 a 1 a 8 a establishment 1 a 8 a 2 a 2 a 2 a 1 a Other crops Livestock production Number of cows Cows per bull Number of horses Cow replacement rate 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 9% Calf death loss 1% 3% 2% 1% 3% 3% Calf crop 97% 92% 92% 85% 85% 92% AUMs required Forage Sources - AUMs Grass pasture - AUMs Native range - AUMs Other - AUMs Hay - tons Hay - AUMs Total forage AUMs supplied Overhead Costs Crops $3,380 $3,515 $5,521 $3,151 $2,163 $12,374 Livestock $730 $740 $1,239 $724 $538 $2,576 Equipment Farm equipment $2,395 $7,395 $26,575 $29,300 $6,395 $42,485 Livestock $24,450 $76,500 $40,250 $39,500 $32,651 $72,400 Livestock equipment/ fences $9,125 $9,125 $9,375 $20,850 $9,125 $9,125 a Double-cropped. Professional Forum 35

3 improved pasture as well as on other rangeland and/or forest pastures. The objective is not to determine how much the livestock producer should pay. The amount that the rancher should pay is either a market price or a price negotiated between the landowner and the cattle owner. The rate-of-returnequating transfer price merely establishes a starting point for analyses. Procedures Eleven New Mexico counties (Figure 2) were selected for this study based on three criteria:1) NMSU generates cost and return estimates every year for these counties (Libbin and Hawkes, 1995); 2) irrigated pasture cost and return estimates are already included in the NMSU estimates; and 3) combined crop and livestock enterprises are common in these counties. The 11 selected counties were grouped into five relatively homogenous production regions De Baca County, eastern slope, Grant/Catron, Lincoln County, northern Table 2. Summary of Per-Acre Costs and Returns for Major Forage Crops mountains and Soccoro County. NMSU s 1996 crop cost and return estimates were used as a base to begin building an integrated crop and livestock system for each county selected for this study (Tables 1 through 4) (Libbin and Hawkes, 1995).The NMSU budget generator has the capacity to assess such factors as farm size, cropping patterns, prices and yields, downtime, supervision and management costs, insurance costs, taxes and employee benefits on both an enterprise and a whole-farm basis (Sullivan et al.). Integrating the livestock enterprise into an NMSU crop budget was a less complex task, especially with respect to fixed costs of assets (tractors and trucks), than that of integrating a crop enterprise into a livestock budget.the selected representative whole farm budgets were modified to include a livestock enterprise. Several production parameters were included: number of cows, calf crop, death loss, forage sources available and intensity of grazing, among others (Table 1). Timing Eastern Grant/ Northern DeBaca Slope Catron Lincoln Mtns. Socorro establishment Purchased inputs $45.30 $89.66 $80.16 $63.36 $45.37 $ Labor Fuel Repairs Fixed costs Total Operating Costs $ $ $ $ $94.87 $ Production period (yrs.) Gross returns $ $ $ $ $ $ Purchased inputs Labor Fuel Repairs Fixed costs Total Operating Costs $ $ $ $ $ $ Net operating profit $ $ $ $ $33.00 $ Interest $55.43 $4.86 $45.89 $86.45 $44.70 $67.60 Return to land & risk $ $ $ $14.88 ($11.70) $ establishment Purchased inputs $46.09 $85.75 $25.66 $ $92.45 $26.10 Labor Fuel Repairs Fixed costs Total Operating Costs $ $ $ $ $ $86.32 Production period Gross returns $ $ $ $ $ $ Purchased inputs Labor Fuel Repairs Fixed costs Total Operating Costs $ $ $ $ $ $ Net operating profit ($156.19) ($122.04) ($136.64)($126.51) ($0.21) ($37.05) Interest $10.92 $8.03 $15.85 $29.84 $17.86 $4.46 Return to land & risk ($167.10) ($130.07) ($152.49)($156.36) ($18.07) ($41.51) and use of the various forage sources and the matching of the number of animals in the herd to the forage source were also included. Results Initial transfer prices were taken from NMSU s 1996 cost and return estimates (for example, Libbin and Hawkes, 1997). grazing transfer prices were constant at $10/AUM 1 as were permanent pasture and annual grass pasture prices. Hay prices ranged from $100 to $130 per ton while native rangeland remained constant at the 1996 federal lands grazing rate of $1.35/AUM. Sale weights were 420 pounds for heifer calves and 470 pounds for steer calves. Return per acre for non-range forage crops is shown in Journal of the ASFMRA

4 Table 2,and return per cow is shown in Table 3. All of the counties that were studied showed a negative net return per cow; losses ranged from $311 to $32 per cow. The negative returns are generally reflective of relatively high 1996 costs (for labor and feed especially) and very low cattle prices, especially during a drought period.there are also high labor opportunity costs associated with small farm or ranch owner-operators. Many owner-operators cannot live upon the income generated from the farm or ranch alone and have found an off-farm source of income. Socorro County showed the largest net farm income of $30,094 with Grant/Catron and Lincoln counties also showing a positive net farm income (Table 4). Return to land and risk for Socorro County was $7,958, with Lincoln County at $25.All other counties yielded negative returns to land and risk.the highest rate of return on investment was in Socorro County with 1.83 percent, followed by Lincoln County with 1.82 percent; all remaining counties yielded a negative rate of return on investment. Opportunity Rates The majority of improved, irrigated pasture cost and return estimates generated by NMSU indicate that pasture is a losing proposition. Yet it is known that pasture plays an important role in many year-round grazing systems in New Mexico. It is quite possible that pastures are budgeted at losses solely because the price attached to pasture does not reflect its true value as a stand-alone enterprise. Historically, NMSU cost and return estimates have used an $8 to $10 per AUM opportunity cost.the $10 rate was used as the base price throughout this report.the $8 to $10 rate was originally chosen as an estimate based on federal and state rangeland leases adjusted for pasture quality and such factors as water availability and labor requirements. It also is possible that budgeted returns are negative because pasture yields are too low; however, interviews with cattle operators and pasture specialists indicate that the yields used in this report generally reflect actual grazing practices. Usually, the grazing rate attached to New Mexico pastures is determined as an opportunity cost based on rangeland rental rates.this is done primarily because there is no active rental market for improved pastures anywhere in New Mexico, 2 and rangeland seemed to be the next best alternative.this study seems to indicate otherwise. Specifically, it shows that improved pasture fills a grazing need that native rangeland cannot fill due to institutional restrictions on winter grazing or limitations on high-altitude forests. Transfer prices are amounts charged by one segment of an organization for a product or service that it supplies to another segment of the same organization (Usry, Hammer and Matz). To put this notion into a diversified farm/ranch context, consider each commodity as a business segment or profit center. Any exchange of goods or services between two profit centers (such as the transfer of grass from the pasture enterprise to the cattle enterprise) should be profitable to both enterprises for all resources and should be allocated efficiently. The transfer price is revenue to the segment producing the product or service and a cost to the acquiring segment (Horngren, Sundem and Stratton). Transfer prices should guide managers to make the best possible economic decision regarding whether to buy or sell products or services within the firm or outside the total organization. For example, a pasture producer might be better off growing alfalfa on land previously allocated to pasture and then feeding the hay, instead of grazing the pasture. The alternatives for determining a fair price seem to be: (1) using market-based prices from other transfers or (2) equating rates of return. Since pasture is usually not sold in the same sense as a mechanically harvested crop, a market-based pricing alternative is not practical. However, an attempt was made to determine a fair transfer price for forage by equating the returns on investment for pasture and livestock (Table 5). Two prices were compared for each representative budget (Table 5).The first price is the current opportunity price that has been used throughout this report while the second is the price at which returns on investment from the pasture and the livestock enterprises, were equal. An increase from the opportunity cost level was necessary in all cases, except for the northern mountain counties, to make the rate of return on investment for pasture equal that of livestock. Because the price received by the pasture enterprise is equal to the price paid by the livestock enterprise, an increase in pasture price would be expected to reduce net operating profit and return on investment for the livestock enterprise. In all areas studied, the pasture and livestock enterprise returns on investment began as negative values, with the exception of Grant-Catron and Lincoln counties, which yielded positive returns in the livestock enterprise. Necessary price increases ranged from $1.64 per AUM in Socorro County to $ in the eastern slope area. Sensitivity Analysis Because the 1996 cattle price scenario (Table 5) represents only one poor cattle price year, 12-year averages of cattle and alfalfa prices were used to study the effect of price changes on net operating profit and Professional Forum 37

5 Table 3. Summary of Per-Cow Livestock Costs and Return Eastern Grant/ Northern DeBaca Slope Catron Lincoln Mtns. Socorro Gross returns $ $ $ $ $ $ Forage $70.00 $30.76 $37.03 $51.49 $19.75 $52.11 Labor, supplemental feed,livestock $ $ $ $ $ $ Overhead $41.74 $15.56 $35.74 $37.29 $26.51 $32.61 Total $ $ $ $ $ $ Net operating profit ($252.92) ($9.45) ($148.68) $22.79 ($144.64) ($122.41) Interest $57.76 $22.81 $ $ $42.72 $36.75 Return to risk ($310.68) ($32.27) ($271.59) ($307.35) ($187.37) ($159.15) Table 4. Summary of Whole-Farm Costs and Return Eastern Grant/ Northern DeBaca Slope Catron Lincoln Mtns. Socorro Gross returns $15,907 $53,117 $30,515 $22,392 $18,895 $ Cash operating expenses $21,165 $85,000 $26,240 $17,072 $19,731 $99,352 Fixed expenses $658 $3,293 $2,272 $1,929 $1,683 $7,211 Net farm income ($5,916) ($35,176) $2,003 $3,391 ($2,519) $30,094 Labor and management $1,602 $10,175 $3,959 $1,904 $1,859 $14,715 Net operating profit ($7,517) ($45,352) ($1,956) $1,487 ($4,378) $15,379 ) Interest $773 $1,479 $1,306 $1,461 $983 $7,422 Return to land and risk ($8,290) ($46,831) ($3,261) $25 ($5,361) $7,958 Rate of return on investment a -6.14% -5.62% -0.95% 1.82% -2.63% 1.83% a ROI = Net operating profit/total investment Table 5. Effect of and Grazing Price Changes on Net Operating Profit and Return on Investment for and Livestock Enterprises & Grazing Price Livestock a County/Area ($/AUM) ($/ton) ($/ac) (%) ($/ac) (%) ($/cow) (%) De Baca (156.19) (3.85) (252.92) (0.75) (1.01) (359.62) (1.01) Grant/Catron (136.64) (4.34) (148.62) (11.48) (0.37) (181.20) (0.37) Eastern Slope (122.04) (2.84) (9.45) (0.01) (12.20) (0.28) (242.81) (0.28) Lincoln (126.51) (5.62) (4.91) (0.22) (30.41) (0.22) Northern (0.21) (0.01) (144.64) (0.35) Mountains (2.88) (13.09) (0.32) (131.76) (0.32) Socorro (37.05) (0.93) (280.95) (0.35) (14.15) (0.35) (288.47) (0.35) a Cattle price ($/cwt.): Steer Calves, 66.00; Heifer Calves, 56.00; Cull Cows, 34.00; Cull Bulls Journal of the ASFMRA

6 return on investment for alfalfa, permanent pasture and livestock (Table 6). A triangular distribution was used to help evaluate the level of risk involved with variable prices.a triangular distribution can be used to approximate a normal distribution and can be developed with just three data points. It also is a very useful tool for teaching probability to farmers and ranchers (Ikerd and Anderson). For this risk-rated analysis, three price levels were chosen:(1) A pessimistic level represents one year in six that this price or a lower price will be attained; (2) an expected price level represents a price that will be at this level or higher in one-half of the years or lower for one-half of the time; and (3) an optimistic price level represents one year in six that this price or higher will be attained.the one in six requirement for pessimistic and optimistic levels places two-thirds of the price probability between these two levels, which roughly corresponds to the probability between one standard deviation below and one above the mean in the normal distribution. These different scenarios were evaluated: low alfalfa prices, low cattle prices; average alfalfa prices, average cattle prices; and high alfalfa prices, high cattle prices. Other combinations of alfalfa and cattle prices are possible,but these three scenarios represent the most illustrative price combinations. An attempt was made to determine a fair transfer price for forage for each of these scenarios as the price that equates return on investment for the pasture and livestock enterprises. The results of high alfalfa prices and low cattle prices are presented in Table 7. prices ranged from $94/ton to $124/ton. 3 Negative pasture enterprise returns on investment were observed for all areas. Returns on investment also were shown for the livestock enterprise negative values with the exception Table 6. Low, Average and High and Cattle Prices for Sensitivity Analysis Cattle Prices Stacked Prices Low Average High $80.00 $ Steers $70.75 $70.75 Low Heifers $58.97 $58.97 Bulls $41.89 $41.89 Cull Cows $36.65 $36.65 $98.90 Steers $92.65 Average Heifers $81.04 Bulls $54.93 Cull Cows $45.98 $80.00 $ Steers $ $ High Heifers $93.51 $93.51 Bulls $64.41 $64.41 Cull Cows $53.52 $53.52 Table 7. Effect of and Grazing Price Changes on Net Operating Profit and Return on Investment for and Livestock Enterprises Using High and Low Cattle Prices & Grazing Price Livestock a County/Area ($/AUM) ($/ton) ($/ac) (%) ($/ac) (%) ($/cow) (%) De Baca (156.19) (3.85) (215.68) (0.64) (36.89) (0.91) (0.91) Grant/Catron (136.64) (4.34) (118.78) (0.24) (9.62) (0.31) (151.79) (0.31) Eastern Slope (133.20) (3.10) (12.08) (0.28) (240.51) (0.28) Lincoln (126.51) (5.62) (0.90) (0.04) (5.56) (0.04) Northern (122.21) (0.29) (113.10) (0.27) Mountains (11.32) (0.27) (113.39) (0.27) Socorro (37.05) (0.93) (243.56) (0.30) (12.35) (0.31) (251.67) (0.31) a Cattle price ($/cwt.): Steers, 70.75; Heifers, 58.97; Cull Cow,s 36.65; Cull Bulls, Professional Forum 39

7 of the Eastern Slope and Lincoln County. Return on investment for alfalfa yielded positive returns in all areas. The scenario, using average alfalfa prices and average cattle prices, is presented in Table 8. In addition to equating returns on investment for the pasture and livestock enterprises, this table also shows the results of equating returns on investment for the alfalfa and pasture enterprises and indicates a market price at which net operating profit and return on investment for pasture equal zero. prices ranged from $69/ton to $99/ton. Cattle prices were $92.65/cwt for steers, $81.04/cwt for heifers, $45.98/cwt for cull cows and $54.93/cwt for cull bulls. When equating ROIs for pasture and livestock, pasture price increases ranged from $1.38 per AUM in Socorro County to $182 in the Eastern Slope area. When equating ROIs for alfalfa and pasture, pasture price increases ranged from $12.55 per AUM in Lincoln County to $310 for the Northern Mountains. 4 When determining a price at which net operating profit and return on investment for pasture equaled zero, pasture price increases ranged from $2.66 per AUM in Socorro County to $193 in the Eastern Slope area. Low alfalfa prices and high cattle prices are presented in Table 9. Permanent pasture returns on investment began as negative values while livestock returns on investment began as positive values in all study areas. yielded negative returns on investment in all areas studied, except in Socorro County. Summary And Conclusions NMSU farm cost and return estimates indicate that improved permanent pasture is a losing proposition when pasture is valued at $10/AUM. Of the six areas studied in this report, each yielded negative returns on investment at 1996 prices for permanent pasture. Losses ranged from (5 percent) in Lincoln County to (0.01 percent) in the Northern Mountain counties. The livestock enterprise yielded negative returns in all areas except Lincoln County, which showed positive returns of 0.16 percent. The alfalfa enterprise yielded positive returns in all areas. Table 8. Effect of and Grazing Price Changes on Net Operating Profit and Return on Investment for and Livestock Enterprises Using Average and Average Cattle Prices & Grazing Price Livestock a County/Area ($/AUM) ($/ton) ($/ac) (%) ($/ac) (%) ($/cow) (%) De Baca (156.19) (3.85) (43.55) (0.13) (17.49) (0.43) (144.86) (0.43) (222.45) (0.66) (158.03) (0.47) Grant/Catron (136.64) (4.34) (1.04) (0.03) (16.31) (0.03) (35.34) (0.07) (16.56) (0.03) Eastern Slope b (179.89) (4.18) (10.76) (0.25) (214.22) (0.25) b b b b b b b b (237.36) (0.28) Lincoln (18.09) (0.08) (126.51) (5.62) (3.58) (0.16) (6.04) (0.27) (6.04) (0.27) (5.44) (0.24) Northern (24.85) (0.56) (62.41) (1.50) Mountains (2.82) (0.07) (28.34) (0.07) Socorro (37.05) (0.93) (68.16) (0.08) (3.88) (0.10) (79.05) (0.10) (147.35) (0.18) (80.32) (0.10) a Cattle price ($/cwt.): Steers, 92.65; Heifers, 81.04; Cull Cows, 45.98; Cull Bulls, b Not obtainable Journal of the ASFMRA

8 There are several possible reasons why improved pasture yields negative returns. First, most producers view permanent pasture as an input into the livestock enterprise and not as a separate entity. Second, it is possible that the price attached to pasture does not represent its true value as a separate enterprise. This reason may be a direct result of using rangeland grazing rates as the initial opportunity rate for improved pasture. This approach is a poor indicator of pasture value, possibly because the rangeland forage is undervalued and/or operating costs on rangeland are substantially higher. Finally, budgeted pasture yields may be too low although farm/ranch interviews have indicated that pasture yields are consistent with current grazing practices. If permanent pasture were considered a separate entity that could be rented to someone else, the landowner might make a different economic decision. However, since there is not an active, open market for renting pasture, the producer views it as a subsidy for livestock. Because the producer has only been concerned with total farm returns, pasture is undervalued. In a cow/calf operation that uses an integrated grazing rotation system with permanent pasture, a transfer of goods and services such as the transfer of grass to livestock will occur. When this exchange occurs, it should benefit both enterprises by efficiently allocating all resources. A fair transfer price also should be determined. Allocating resource, not determining appropriate price, is the real issue. However, determining transfer price is the key mechanism to optimal resource allocation. Undervaluing pasture may lead to suboptimal decisions, such as the decision not to fertilize or otherwise improve the pasture. Improper decisions to carry cattle to heavier weights can also be a result of undervaluing the pasture. In an attempt to reveal a fair transfer price for forage by equating rates of return on investment for alfalfa, pasture and livestock, different scenarios were evaluated.the current opportunity price for alfalfa and pasture, the current market price for alfalfa and cattle, and 12-year average prices for alfalfa and cattle were used. In each scenario, most areas studied saw a price ($/AUM) increase for alfalfa and pasture. These price increases reduced net operating profit and return on investment for livestock but increased net operating profit and return on investment for pasture.although some areas still yielded a negative return on pasture with the price increase, it was less negative than it had been with the previous opportunity price. This was true for all scenarios evaluated. Negative returns were generally reflective of 1996, which saw the high feed costs and low cattle prices that can result from a drought. Table 9. Effect of and Grazing Price Changes on Net Operating Profit and Return on Investment for and Livestock Enterprises Using Low and High Cattle Prices & Grazing Price Livestock a County/Area ($/AUM) ($/ton) ($/ac) (%) ($/ac) (%) ($/cow) (%) De Baca (17.10) (0.38) (156.19) (3.85) (1.99) (0.04) (5.14) (0.13) (42.16) (0.13) Grant/Catron (21.24) (0.62) (136.64) (4.34) (9.49) (0.28) Eastern Slope (45.18) (1.12) (215.04) (5.00) (10.48) (0.24) (208.70) (0.24) Lincoln (90.67) (4.03) (126.51) (5.62) (74.98) (3.33) Northern (60.00) (1.36) (100.21) (2.42) Mountains Socorro (37.05) (0.93) a Cattle price ($/cwt.): Steers, ; Heifers, 93.51; Cull Cow,s 53.52; Cull Bulls, Professional Forum 41

9 Endnotes 1 AUM=Animal Unit Month, the amount of forage necessary to maintain a cow and her unweaned calf for one month. 2 The only active pasture rental markets in New Mexico exist for winter wheat, generally on the eastern plains, and rangeland throughout the state. 3 The actual price that was used depended upon the farm or location in which the hay was sold. Ninetyfour dollars represents a standing hay price while $124 represents a delivered-to-the-buyer price. 4 No equating price could be determined for the Eastern Slope area. References Hawkes, J.M. and J.D. Libbin A Long-Term Look at Crop Profitability in New Mexico: Cost and Return Estimates for Research Report, New Mexico Agricultural Experiment Station, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM. Horngren, C.H., G.L. Sundem, and W.O. Stratton Introduction to Management Accounting. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Ikerd, J.E. and K.B. Anderson Risk Rated Management Strategies for Farm and Ranch Decisions. Oklahoma Extension Circular E-841, Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK. Libbin, J.D. and J.M. Hawkes Crop Cost and Return Estimates in New Mexico By County and By Crop, Research Report 699, New Mexico Agricultural Experiment Station, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM. Libbin, J.D. and J.M. Hawkes Estimated Prices, Yields and Selected Production Parameters Used in Budgeting Costs and Returns for New Mexico Cooperative Extension Service, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM. Sullivan, R.P., M.J. Schaber, J.D. Libbin, and B.E. Mayberry Microcomputer Crop Cost and Return Generator Technical Documentation. Bulletin 726, New Mexico Agricultural Experiment Station, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM. Usry, M.F., L.H. Hammer, and A. Matz Cost Accounting: Planning and Control. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing Journal of the ASFMRA