AgEBB Alt Header

2001 Bootheel Irrigation Survey

Prepared by Joe Henggeler, Extension Agricultural Engineer
Commercial Agricultural Program


Average irrigated acreage of those surveyed in 2001: 37 acres
Average acreage planned for irrigation in 2002: 932 acres
X 10.2% increase

I. Systems Used by Respondents

Furrow, rigid pipe 11 % Center pivot, fixed 40 %
Furrow, poly-pipe 35 % Center pivot, towable 7 %
Furrow, poly-pipe using surge 4% Furrow, rigid using surge 3 %

II. Irrigation Costs

1. Fuel

Type %Area Using Cost Sample Size
LP Gas 19 % $ 8.89/acre 14
Diesel 47 % $11.49/acre 31
Electric 34 % $ 9.39/acre 21

2. Maintenance and Repairs

Table 1. Maintenance and Repair Cost, Bootheel of Missouri, 2001
  Per Farmer Per Well Per Acre
Wells $1,140 $ 82.86 $ 1.06
Pumps $1,509 $ 184.94 $ 2.51
System
(average all types)
$2,779 $ 374.89 $ 4.59
Total $5428 $646.09 $ 8.16
note: 79.4 acres/well site
10.8 wells per farmer

III. Irrigation Scheduling

The percentage of corn, cotton, and soybean acreage using either Arkansas Scheduler computer program or Woodruff charts was 21%. Overall scheduling produced 16 bu/ac more corn, 121 lbs/ac more cotton, and 10 bu/ac more full season soybeans, but 3 bu/ac less double-crop soybeans then irrigators who did not use either method.. 32%, 17%, 16%, and 9% of corn, cotton, full-season soybean, and double-crop soybean producers, respectively, used scheduling. The number of years experience in irrigating did not appear to effect method used. Results can be seen in Table 2.

IV. Iron in Water

Respondents were asked to evaluate the irrigation water for each field as to its amount of iron by identifying it as "low", "medium", or "high". The amount to iron did not seem to effect yield very much; relative yields are seen in Table 3 (relative is the yield divided by the average sprinkler or average flood yield, as the case may be).

Table 2. Yields of crops based on irrigation scheduling method employed, Sample sizes and average years of irrigating experience
Crop No scheduling method Scheduling Methodologies Difference between scheduling & not scheduling
    Ark. Scheduler computer program Woodruff irrigation charts  
Corn 178.2 bu/ac
68% of users
n=36
Yrs Irr = 23.3
188.5 bu/ac
19% of users
n = 10
Yrs Irr = 20.0
203.1 bu/ac
13% of users
n = 7
Yrs Irr = 21.9
+ 16.3 bu/ac
9 % increase
Cotton 954.2 lbs/ac
83% of users
n = 24
Yrs Irr = 20.4
1094.5 lbs/ac
14% of users
n = 4
Yrs Irr = 12.8
996.0 lbs/ac
3% of users
n = 1
Yrs Irr = 2.0
+ 120.6 lbs/ac
13 % increase
Soybean 44.5 bu/ac
84% of users
n = 36
Yrs Irr = 20.6
52.9 bu/ac
3 % of users
n = 3
Yrs Irr = 22.0
56.0 bu/ac
9 % of users
n = 4
Yrs Irr = 27.0
+ 10.2 bu/ac
23 % increase
Double Crop soybean 35.8 bu/ac
91% of users
n = 21
Yrs Irr = 16.8
32.3 bu/ac
4% of users
n = 1
Yrs Irr = 21.0
34.0 bu/ac
4 % of a users
n = 1
Yrs Irr = 30.0
- 2.7 bu/ac
7 % decrease

Table 3. Relative Yields of Corn, Cotton, & Soybeans Based on Sprinkled or Flood Irrigated and Iron Content of Water
Iron Amount in Water CORN COTTON SOYBEANS
Pivot Flood Pivot Flood Pivot Flood
RelYield # RelYield # RelYield # RelYield # RelYield # RelYield #
Low 1.01 7 0.83 1 0.92 3 1.01 1 1.18 3 0.82 3
Medium 0.98 18 1.01 16 1.03 9 0.99 8 0.98 21 1.02 23
High 1.05 5 1.01 4 --- --- 1.03 3 0.90 2 1.01 9

V. Crop Cultural Practices

Deep-ripped: 56 % (74%, 56% & 13 % for sand, silt & clay, respectively)
Limed: 69 % (71%, 71% & 61% for sand, silt & clay, respectively)
Laser-leveled: 36 % (8%, 55% & 42% for sand, silt & clay, respectively)
Minimum till: 61 % (60%, 65% & 61% for sand, silt & clay, respectively)
Minimum till: 61 % (43%, 79%, 52% & 91% for corn, cotton, soybean and d.c. soybeans, respectively)
Use of drain furrows: 58% (47%, 67% & 48% for sand, silt & clay, respectively)

VI. Land Value Increase when Irrigation is Present

Irrigators were asked if irrigation on farm land increased the value of land. Compared to raw farm land the presence of irrigation increased land value by:

Table 4a. Corn yield in bushels per acre for various soil types as affected by minimum tilling, deep ripping, liming, lasering, and use of surface drains, Southeast Missouri, 2001.
  Minimum Till Deep Ripped Limed Lasered Drain Furrow
  Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
clay/gumbo 183.6
n =5
172.0
n=3
145.0
n=1
184.1
n=7
170.8
n=4
187.8
n=4
146.0
n = 3
199.2
n = 5
161.3
n = 3
190.0
n = 5
sand 180.5
n =12
188.7
n=15
184.5
n =21
186.7
n = 6
185.7
n =23
181.3
n=4
185.0
n = 5
185.0
n =22
181.4
n =13
188.4
n =14
silt 175.8
n = 5
182.3
n=12
184.4
n=10
174.7
n=7
182.5
n=10
177.5
n=7
187.7
n = 6
176.5
n =11
181.2
n = 10
179.4
n = 7
Other --- 225.0
n = 1
--- 225.0
n = 1
225.0
n = 1
--- --- 225.0
n = 1
225.0
n = 1
---
AVERAGE 180.1
n=22
185.8
n=31
183.2
n=32
183.7
n=21
184.3
n=38
181.3
n=15
177.8
n=14
185.4
n=39
180.7
n=27
186.3
n=26
AVERAGE YIELD CHANGE -5.7 -0.4 + 3.1 - 7.7 - 5.6

Table 4b. Cotton yield in pounds of lint per acre for various soil types as affected by minimum tilling, deep ripping, liming, lasering, and use of surface drains, Southeast Missouri, 2001.
  Minimum Till Deep Ripped Limed Lasered Drain Furrow
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
clay/gumbo 967.0
n=1
985.5
n=2
981.5
n=2
975.0
n=1
981.5
n=2
975.0
n=1
985.5
n=2
967.0
n=1
967.0
n=1
985.5
n=2
sand 958.7
n=13
1200.0
n=2
997.6
n=9
937.0
n=6
965.5
n=12
1036.5
n=3
984.8
n=4
972.4
n=11
941.0
n=6
995.3
n=9
silt 947.0
n=5
700.0
n=1
907.0
n=5
900.0
n=1
927.5
n=4
862.5
n=2
905.8
n=6
--- 1025.0
n=2
846.3
n=4
Other 1000.0
n=2
1025.0
n=3
1012.5
n=4
--- 1012.5
n=4
--- 1000.0
n=2
1025.0
n=3
1050.0
n=2
1000.0
n=3
AVERAGE 960.2
n=21
1018.2
n=8
976.3
n=20
932.1
n=8
968.8
n=22
968.3
n=6
953.2
n=14
914.2
n=15
969.3
n=11
961.8
n=18
AVERAGE YIELD CHANGE - 58.0 + 39.2 +0.5 + 39.0 + 16.7

TABLE 4C. SOYBEAN YIELD IN BUSHELS PER ACRE FOR VARIOUS SOIL TYPES AS AFFECTED BY MINIMUM TILLING, DEEP RIPPING, LIMING, LASERING, AND USE OF SURFACE DRAINS, SOUTHEAST MISSOURI, 2001.
  Minimum Till Deep Ripped Limed Lasered Drain Furrow
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
clay/gumbo 47.6
n=9
49.7
n=4
55.5
n=1
47.6
n=12
49.8
n=7
46.5
n=6
49.8
n=8
47.3
n=5
48.1
n=7
48.5
n=6
sand 36.2
n=6
43.4
n=8
37.1
n=9
46.0
n=5
40.1
n=9
40.6
n=5
46.5
n=4
37.8
n=10
39.8
n=9
41.2
n=5
silt 48.2
n=6
50.9
n=9
47.2
n=5
51.1
n=10
51.8
n=8
47.6
n=7
54.8
n=10
39.8
n=5
48.8
n=9
51.3
n=6
Other --- 45.0
n=1
45.0
n=1
--- 45.0
n=1
--- --- 45.0
n=1
45.0
n=1
---
AVERAGE 44.5
n=21
45.6
n=23
41.9
n=16
48.6
n=27
46.8
n=23
45.3
n=18
51.1
n=22
40.9
n=21
45.4
n=26
47.3
n=17
AVERAGE YIELD CHANGE - 1.1 - 6.7 + 1.5 + 10.2 - 2.0

TABLE 4D. DOUBLE-CROP SOYBEAN YIELD IN BUSHELS PER ACRE FOR VARIOUS SOIL TYPES AS AFFECTED BY MINIMUM TILLING, DEEP RIPPING, LIMING, LASERING, AND USE OF SURFACE DRAINS, SOUTHEAST MISSOURI, 2001.
Minimum Till Deep Ripped Limed Lasered Drain Furrow
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
clay/gumbo 25.3
n=3
42.0
n=1
--- 29.5
n=4
26.0
n=2
33.0
n=2
31.5
n=2
27.5
n=2
27.5
n=2
31.5
n=2
sand 35.4
n=7
36.0
n=2
33.0
n=4
37.6
n=5
36.8
n=8
26.0
n=1
38.0
n=2
35.3
n=8
39.0
n=4
32.8
n=5
silt 40.7
n=7
32.3
n=1
37.3
n=3
41.0
n=5
46.7
n=3
35.4
n=5
41.0
n=2
29.2
n=6
39.8
n=2
39.6
n=6
Other --- 32.1
n=1
--- 32.1
n=1
32.1
n=1
--- --- 32.1
n=1
--- 32.1
n=1
AVERAGE 35.8
n=17
35.7
n=5
34.5
n=7
36.5
n=14
37.0
n=14
33.6
n=8
36.8
n=6
35.6
n=17
36.3
n=8
35.5
n=14
AVERAGE YIELD CHANGE + 0.1 - 1.4 + 3.4 + 1.3 + 0.6

TABLE 5.-- 2001 BOOTHEEL IRRIGATION RESULTS
  CORN COTTON FC SOY DC SOY MILO
Number Reported 53 29 43 23 1
Acres Reported 6572 4416 4241 2402 95
# of Irrigations, furrow 5.2 3.6 3.9 3.6 ---
# of Irrigation, pivot 9.8 5.3 4.5 6.7 5.0
Irrigated Yield 183 bu 966 lbs 46 bu 36 bu 84 bu
Dryland Yield 119 bu 777 lbs 31 bu 21 bu 50 bu
Increase over Dryland 69.3 bu 184.4 lbs 5.2 bu 16.5 bu 34.0 bu

TABLE 6.--1987-2001 BOOTHEEL IRRIGATION SURVEY
Yields for Irrigated vs Dryland Crops and their Breakeven Costs
Year Irrig.
Corn
(bu)
Non-Irrig.
Corn
(bu)
Irrig.
Soybeans
(bu)
Non-Irrig.
Soybeans
(bu)
Irrig.
DC
Soybeans
(bu)
Non-Irrig.
DC
Soybeans
(bu)
Irrig.
Cotton
(lbs)
Non-Irrig.
Cotton
(lbs)
Irrig.
Milo
(bu)
Non-Irrig.
Milo
(bu)
1987 149 121 44 32 33 19 --- --- 110 101
1988 148 88 39 32 36 27 877 718 108 91
1989 152 117 37 27 29 23 807 605 92 77
1990 146 86 44 29 38 31 768 528 82 32
1991 143 84 42 29 43 30 917 678 105 69
1992 189 135 48 37 44 32 1029 990 121 108
1993 137 95 44 31 41 30 722 546 113 75
1994 162 123 47 38 43 37 933 779 101 93
1995 156 124 43 29 42 31 637 422 90 66
1996 170 124 43 32 42 25 905 719 98 63
1997 155 103 41 28 42 31 865 723 110 70
1998 140 95 37 22 40 27 692 542 82 ---
1999 163 121 49 21 43 17 787 471 --- ---
2000 171 --- 43 --- 39 --- 733 --- 140 ---
2001 183
($2.17)*
119
($2.52)*
46
($5.92)*
31
($6.86)*
36
($7.57)*
21
($10.16)*
966
($0.50)*
777
($0.53)*
84
($3.20)*
50
($4.24)*
Avg 158 110 43 30 39 27 831 653 103 75
* Break-even price; after D. Reinbott. 2001. Crop Budgets: Southeast Missouri. Un-numbered report. University of Missouri Outreach & Extension Service. Scott County.

TABLE 7A.--IRRIGATED FULL-SEASON SOYBEAN YIELD (BU/AC)
2001 Bootheel Irrigation Survey
Showing # of irrigations & Average Depth Applied
Soil Type Fixed Pivot Tow-able Pivot Rigid Pipe Poly-pipe Average
Sand 37.7
(4.7 @ 0.8")
n = 7
24.0
(1.0 @ 1.0")
n = 1
--- 46.0
(4.5 @ 2.3")
n = 6
40.28
n = 14
Silt 48.3
(5.3 @ 1.1")
n = 3
56.1
(6.0 @ 0.8")
n = 1
52.0
(3.0 @ 2.4")
n = 3
48.8
(3.4 @ 2.0")
n = 8
49.83
n = 15
Clay/Gumbo 53.0
(5.0 @ 1.0")
n = 1
45.0
(2.0 @ 0.8")
n = 1
51.0
(2.5 @ 2.0")
n = 2
47.5
(4.4 @ 2.6")
n = 9
48.27
n = 13
Other --- --- --- 45.0
(4.0 @ 2.0")
n = 1
45.00
n = 1
Average 42.00
n = 11
41.70
n = 3
51.60
n = 5
47.45
n = 24
46.12
n = 43
furrow users with surge = 48.6 bu/ac (n=8)
furrow users without surge = 48.0 bu/ac (n=23)

TABLE 7B.-- YIELD INCREASE (BU/AC) DUE TO IRRIGATION FOR FULL-SEASON SOYBEAN
2001 Bootheel Irrigation Survey
Soil Type Fixed Pivot Tow-able Pivot Rigid Pipe Poly-pipe Average
Sand 8.7
n = 7
2.0
n = 1
--- 14.2
n = 6
10.58
n = 14
Silt 10.7
n = 3
21.8
n = 1
13.3
n = 3
27.9
n = 8
21.13
n = 15
Clay/Gumbo 13.0
n = 1
5.0
n = 1
8.5
n = 2
20.4
n = 9
16.82
n = 13
Other --- --- --- --- ---
Average 9.64
n = 11
9.60
n = 3
11.40
n = 5
21.39
n = 23
16.28
n = 42

TABLE 8A--IRRIGATED DOUBLE-CROP SOYBEANS YIELD (BU/AC)
2001 Bootheel Irrigation Survey
Showing # of irrigations & Average Depth Applied
Soil Type Fixed Pivot Tow-able Pivot Rigid Pipe Poly-pipe Average
Sand 34.3
(10.3 @ 1.0")
n = 6
38.0
(6.5 @ 1.0")
n = 2
--- 38.0
(6.0 @ 2.0")
n = 1
35.53
n = 9
Silt 39.0
(5.0 @ 2.4")
n = 3
37.6
(5.0 @ 0.7")
n = 1
48.0
(2.0 @ 3.0")
n = 1
38.1
(3.0 @ 2.7")
n = 3
39.61
n = 8
Clay/Gumbo 27.5
(4.0 @ 1.2)
n = 2
--- --- 31.5
(4.0 @ 2.5")
n = 2
29.50
n = 4
Other 32.0
(--- @ ---)
n = 1
--- --- --- 32.00
n = 1
Average 34.15
n = 12
37.87
n = 3
48.00
n = 1
35.88
n = 6
35.76
n = 22
furrow users with surge = 30.4 bu/ac (n=3)
furrow users without surge = 43.0 bu/ac (n=4)

TABLE 8B.-- YIELD INCREASE (BU/AC) DUE TO IRRIGATION FOR DOUBLE-CROP SOYBEAN
2001 Bootheel Irrigation Survey TABLE
Soil Type Fixed Pivot Tow-able Pivot Rigid Pipe Poly-pipe Average
Sand 17.8
n = 6
15.0
n = 1
--- 18.0
n = 1
17.48
n = 8
Silt 12.3
n = 3
21.5
n = 1
23.0
n = 1
26.0
n = 2
19.06
n = 7
Clay/Gumbo 6.0
n = 2
--- --- 12.0
n = 1
8.00
n = 3
Other --- --- --- --- ---
Average 14.18
n = 11
18.25
n = 2
23.00
n = 1
20.50
n = 4
16.53
n = 18

TABLE 9A.--IRRIGATED CORN YIELD (BU/AC)
2001 Bootheel Irrigation Survey
Showing # of irrigations & Average Depth Applied
Soil Type Fixed Pivot Tow-able Pivot Rigid Pipe Poly-pipe Average
Sand 184.3
(11.5@0.8")
n=15
194.1
(10.7 @ 0.9")
n=3
--- 183.3
(6.0@2.2")
n=9
185.03
n=27
Silt 187.9
(7.3@1.6")
n=6
--- 188.0
(3.0@3.0")
n = 1
175.2
(4.4 @ 2.4")
n = 10
180.44
n=17
Clay/Gumbo 204.0
(7.5@1.1")
n=4
180.0
(4.0@0.8")
n=1
175.0
(3.0@2.0")
n=1
131.5
(7.5@2.5")
n=2
179.25
n=8
Other 225.0
(12.0 @ 1.5")
n=1
--- --- --- 225.0
n=1
Average 189.66
n=26
190.60
n=4
181.5
n=2
174.51
n=21
183.42
n=53
furrow users with surge =178.3 bu/ac(n=3)
furrow users without surge =174.7 bu/ac(n=20)

TABLE 9B.-- YIELD INCREASE (BU/AC) DUE TO IRRIGATION FOR CORN
2001 Bootheel Irrigation Survey
Soil Type Fixed Pivot Tow-able Pivot Rigid Pipe Poly-pipe Average
Sand 85.8
n=15
100.7
n=3
--- 78.14
n=9
84.90
n=27
Silt 50.9
n=6
--- 53.0
n=1
59.2
n=10
55.91
n=17
Clay/Gumbo 45.5
n=4
15.0
n=1
10.0
n=1
55.0
n=2
39.63
n=8
Other 100.0
n=1
--- --- --- ---
Average 70.30
n=26
79.25
n=4
31.50
n=2
66.92
n=21
68.46
n=52

TABLE 10A.--IRRIGATED COTTON YIELD (LB/AC)
2001 Bootheel Irrigation Survey
Showing # of irrigations & Average Depth Applied
Soil Type Fixed Pivot Tow-able Pivot Rigid Pipe Poly-pipe Average
Sand 972.4
(4.0 @ 6.0")
n=11
--- --- 984.8
(6.0@2.0")
n=4
975.71
n=15
Silt --- --- --- 905.8
(4.0@6.0")
n=6
905.80
n=6
Clay/Gumbo 967.0
(4.0 @ 6.0")
n=1
--- --- 985.5
(4.0 @ 6.0")
n=2
979.33
n=3
Other 1000.0
(4.0 @ 6.0")
n=2
--- --- 1016.7
(4.0@6.0")
n=3
1010.02
n=5
Average 974.25
n=14
--- --- 959.67
n=15
967.53
n=29
furrow users with surge = 1000.0 bu/ac(n = 4)
furrow users without surge = 945.0 bu/ac(n = 11)

TABLE 10B.-- YIELD INCREASE (LB/AC) DUE TO IRRIGATION FOR CORN
2001 Bootheel Irrigation Survey
Soil Type Fixed Pivot Tow-able Pivot Rigid Pipe Poly-pipe Average
Sand 194.1
n = 11
--- --- 122.3
n = 4
174.96
n = 15
Silt --- --- --- 195.8
n = 8
195.80
n = 6
Clay/Gumbo 334.0
n = 1
--- --- 210.5
n = 2
251.67
n = 3
Other 125.0
n = 2
--- --- 125.0
n = 2
125.0
n = 4
Average 200
n = 14
--- --- 166.78
n = 16
184.40
n = 30

Back to Missouri Irrigation Surveys | Back to Missouri Irrigation