Summary: Objective: Materials and Methods:

Transcription

1 Irrigated Pima Cotton Variety Test John & Doug Wilde s Farm, 2013 Rick Minzenmayer, Extension Agent-IPM Joshua Blanek, County Extension Agent-Agriculture Dr. David Drake, Extension Agronomist and William Thompson, Extension Economist Tom Green County Summary: Three Pima cotton varieties were compared under similar growing conditions to determine which cotton varieties consistently have higher yields and favorable fiber qualities. Deltapine 358 RF topped this test with a lint yield of 892 lbs./acre and a lint value of $1, per acre. Phytogen 802 RF and Phytogen 805 RF also performed well with lint yields of 744 lbs./acre and 616 lbs./acre, respectively. Total lint value per acre for Phytogen 802 RF and Phytogen 805 RF were $1, and $ per acre, respectively. Producers should keep in mind that these results can change under different field conditions, soil fertility and irrigation practices, it is suggested that you look at the better cultivars on your farm to determine if they are compatible with your management style. Objective: Commercial cotton varieties require testing each year for determinations of consistency of yield and fiber quality. Through the use of a field test, a comparison is made of new varieties of cotton with varieties that have proven to be successful, long term yielders. Testing of said varieties within a geographic area of production is important to provide local producers with the latest information on old and view varieties. Materials and Methods: Three Pima cotton varieties were planted using an eight-row John Deere Maxi-Merge planter in a strip test fashion across an SSI field in the Wall farming community. Table 1 shows the plant stand counts collected on June 3, 2013 and June 12, The following is a list of materials and methods used in this evaluation.

2 Planting Date: May 14, 2013 Seeding Rate: 45,000 Seeds/Acre Planting Pattern: Every Row on 40" centers Previous Crop: Cotton Soil Type: Angelo Clay Loam Irrigated: SSI Soil Moisture: Excellent Herbicide: Direx 1.25 pt/ac. + Caprol 3 pts/ac. applied 2 days after planting Fertilizer: 125 lbs. N applied through drip during growing season Insecticide: 2 applications of Prevathon for bollworm control, 1 application of Imidacloprid for cotton aphid control, 5 lbs. Temik applied at planting Harvest Date: November 4, 2013 Table 1. Plant stand counts taken on June 3, 2013 and June 12, 2013 from John and Doug Wilde s Pima Cotton Variety Trial Evaluation. Tom Green County, Variety Plant Stand Avg. #/10 ft. Cotyledon True Leaf Stage Plant Stand Avg. #/10 ft. 6 th True Leaf Stage PHY 802 RF PHY 805 RF DP 358 RF Average plant populations were determined from four different locations within each plot at each growth stage. Results and Discussion: Table 2 contains the fiber quality analysis for each of the three cotton varieties evaluated in this test. Deltapine 358 RF topped this test with a lint yield of 892 lbs./acre and a lint value of $1, per acre. Phytogen 802 RF and Phytogen 805 RF also performed well with lint yields of 744 lbs./acre and 616 lbs./acre, respectively. Total lint value for Phytogen 802 RF was $1, per acre and for Phytogen 805 RF it was $ per acre. Each variety was picker harvested separately using a six row John Deere round bale cotton picker. The Pima cotton was taken to a roller gin in Saragosa, Tx for ginning.

3 Table 2. Fiber Analysis and Lint Yield from John and Doug Wilde s Irrigated Pima Cotton Variety Test (Tom Green County, 2013) Variety Mic Length Uniformity Strength Elon. Rd +b CGRD Leaf Lint Lint lb/acre Value PHY 805 RF $ PHY 802 RF $1,116.0 DP 358 RF $1,338.0 Average: Std: CV% Highest: Lowest: Economic Budgeting and Analysis: The above list of materials and methods has been used to construct a partial cost of production budget for ELS cotton. This then allows for various comparisons and analysis to be made. Table 3 compares revenue, cost of production, net returns per acre and break even prices for both irrigated upland cotton and irrigated ELS cotton. The yields used on the irrigated upland cotton budgets are the 2013 overall trial averages from replicated yield trials on the same farm in which the ELS yield trials were conducted. The challenging conditions of 2013 dictated that realized yields from both cotton types be factored into the comparison rather than utilizing budgeted yield figures for the upland cotton production. Key variable cost categories have been identified in the Table 3 budgets for the purpose of highlighting differences in technology and the resulting differences in agronomic practices and management; seed, insecticide, harvesting, hauling and ginning. Transportation costs in getting ELS seed cotton to a roller gin requires additional analysis. The estimated cost for hauling the ELS seed cotton from Wall, TX to Saragosa, TX is reflected in Table 2. Figure 1 presents a graphical representation of the relationship between net return per acre and distance to an ELS roller gin. It is assumed that producers have access to a saw gin for their upland cotton within their local commerce area, thus they will not incur additional trucking costs. The net returns for Upland Cotton in Figure 1 are represented by the horizontal line at $324 per acre. If a local producer had access to an ELS gin within his local commerce area and based on the cost of production data in Figure 1, an ELS net return of $394 per acre could be expected. Transportation costs increase as the distance to the ELS gin increases. At approximately 400 miles, the net returns of both types of cotton are the same, and beyond that it would be more economical for a producer to grow upland cotton. The distance where upland and ELS cotton returns are the same will vary based on numerous factors so producers are advised to evaluate their options carefully.

4 Table 3. Cost of Production Analysis; Irrigated Upland vs Irrigated ELS Cotton in Tom Green County, TX, Income: Drip Irrigated Upland Cotton Drip Irrigated ELS Cotton Lint 1,221 lbs X $0.78/lb =$ Lbs X $1.50/lb = $1, Seed 0.88 tons X $285.00/ton = $ tons X $240.00/ton = $ Total Revenue $1, $1, Expense: Seed 38.5 Thou X $1.41/Thou.= $ Thou. X $0.72/Thou. = $32.40 Insecticide $9.20 $88.06 Crop Insurance $25.02 $31.30 Irrigation energy $ $78.60 Scouting $5.00 Other Non-Harvest Variable $ $ cost Harvest Cost: Custom Harvest Strip $ Pick $93.88 Haul Modules to Roller Gin 250 mi. X $3.50/ mi. = $44.70 Ginning Saw gin 47.36cwt X $2.50 = $ Roller gin cwt X $4.50 = Other Harvest Expense $87.50 $71.52 Total Variable Cost $ $ Return Above V.C. $ $ Fixed Costs: Depreciation $80.07 $82.00 Land Charge $70.00 $70.00 Total Fixed Costs $ $ Total Cost $ $ Net Return $ $ Break Even Price of Lint Produced $0.51 $1.03

5 Acknowledgments: Sincere appreciation is expressed to John and Doug Wilde for establishing and managing this test. Also a word of thanks to the seed companies that provided cotton seed and financial support, they include: Dow AgroScience who provided Phytogen 802 RF and Phytogen 805 RF Delta and Pine Land Company who provided Deltapine 358 B2RF A Special Thanks is also extended to Max Kerley with Kasburg Gin Co., Inc. for making arrangements for transportation and ginning of seed cotton.